Judgment S. K. Jha, J. 1. The change brought about in the language of section 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter to be referred to as the old code) by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be called the new Code), to which a detailed reference will be made hereinafter at an appropriate place has given rise to the construction of the much talked of term "after consultation with" in this application under Article 226 of the constitution. While the petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the State government notification dated 6th April, 1978 (copy marked annexure 1 to the petition) as being without any consultation with the High Court in consonance with the provisions of section 7 (2) and (3) of the new Code, the stand of respondent no.1 has been that the statutory requirement of consultation with the High Court has been fulfilled, making annexure 1 immune from any legal attack. But before going into this question, the facts, admitted as they are, culminating in the impugned nontification must be noticed. 2. On 9th November, 1976 the State Government issued a notification transferring Kuseshwar Asthan Police Thana from Samastipur sessions division to Darbhanga sessions division with effect from 1st December, 1976. This was admittedly done after consultation with the High Court. A copy of this notification has been annexed with the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.1 and marked annexure A. Even before the ink was dry on the notification aforementioned, on 26th September, 1977 the Principal Secretary to the State Government in the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department (District Reorganisation Branch) wrote to the Registrar of this High Court intimating that the proposal for retransferring Kusheshwar Asthan Police Thana from Darbhanga to Samastipur district was under consideration of the state Government and that the State Government wanted that it should be re-transferred to samastipur district. The opinion of the High Court was solicited on this proposal. A copy of the letter has been marked Annexure D to the counter affidavit. The opinion of the High Court was solicited on this proposal. A copy of the letter has been marked Annexure D to the counter affidavit. In response to the letter, the Registrar of this High Court, wrote to the Principal Secretary on 23rd November, 1977 (copy marked annexure E) stating that from the point of view of Administration of Criminal and Civil Justice Kuseshwar Asthan police station should remain tagged with Benipur sub-division of Darbhanga district ; the proposal of the State Government was not acceptable to the High court. Soon thereafter the Principal Secretary wrote back to the Registrar on 17th December, 1977 (copy marked Annexure F) stating that the present state Government thought that the police station concerned ought to remain in the Samastipur district as before the issuance of the notification dated 9-11-76 (Annexure A) as the files in the Patna Secretariat did not show any substantial reason for transference of Kuseshwar Asthan police station from the Samastipur sessions division to the Darbhanga sessions division. I he only reason advanced in (Annexure F) was that keeping in view the sentiments of the people in general the State Government desired to re-transfar Kuseshwar Asthan police station from Darbhanga sessions division to Samastipur session division. As pieces of further correspondence, the Registrar wrote back to the Principal Secretary on 7th February, 1978 (copy marked annexure G) stating "i am directed to enquire as to whether there are any fresh and good reasons for suggesting revision. . . . . . " Replying to the Registrars letter (Annexure G) the Principal secretary wrote back only 3 days later on 10th February, 1978 (copy marked annexure J) stating that the reason given in (annexure F) was the only reason and that the State Government had nothing more to say on the subject. On 11th March, 1978 the Registrar communicated the opinion of the High Court (copy marked Annexure K) stating that the High Court sticks to its earlier decision. Then on 6th April, l978 the impugned notification (annexure 1)was issued by the State Government re-transferring Kuseshwar Asthan police station from Darbhanga sessions division to Samstipur sessions division. There is no controversy about these facts. 3. Then on 6th April, l978 the impugned notification (annexure 1)was issued by the State Government re-transferring Kuseshwar Asthan police station from Darbhanga sessions division to Samstipur sessions division. There is no controversy about these facts. 3. In view of the respective contention of the parties with regard to the compliance or otherwise with ths requirements of section 7 of the new Code, it is worthwhile to take note of the provision of sections 7 and 9 of the old code and compare them with those of the new Code. The relevant portions of sections 7 and 9 of the old Code are reproduced hereunder:- "7. (1) Every State shall be a sessions division or shall consist of sessions divisions ; and every sessions division shall, for the purposes of this Code, be a district or consist of districts : provided that every metropolitan area shall for the said purposes, be a separate sessions division and district. (2) The State Government may, after consultation with the High Court, alter the limits or the number of such divisions and districts. (3) The State Government may, after consultation with the High Court, divide any district into sub-divisions and may alter the limits or the number of such sub-divisions. (4) The sessions divisions, districts and sub-divisions existing in a State at the commencement of this Code, shall be deemed to have been formed under this section.9. (1) The State Government shall establish a Court of Session for every sessions division. (2) Every Court of Session shall be presided over by a Judge, to be appointed by the High Court. (3) The High Court may also appoint Additional Sessions Judges and assistant Sessions Judges to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of session. (4) The Sessions Judge of one sessi ons division may be appointed by the High Court to be also an Additional Sessions Judge of another division, and in such case he may sit for the disposal of cases at such place or places in the other division as the High Court may direct. (4) The Sessions Judge of one sessi ons division may be appointed by the High Court to be also an Additional Sessions Judge of another division, and in such case he may sit for the disposal of cases at such place or places in the other division as the High Court may direct. (5) Where the office of the Sessions Judge is vacant, the High Court may make arrangements for the disposal of any urgent application which is, or may be, made or pending before such Court of Session by an Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge, or, if there be no additional or Assistant Sessions Judge, by a Chief Judicial magistrate, in the sessions division ; and every such Judge or Magistrate shall have jurisdiction to deal with any such application. (6) The Court of Session shall ordinarily hold its sitting at such place or places as the High Court may, by notification, specify ; but, if, in any particular case, the Court of Session is of opinion that it will tend to the general convenience of the parties and witnesses to hold its sittings at any other place in the sessions division, it may, with the consent of the prosecution and the accused, sit at that place for the disposal of the case or the examination of any witness or witnesses therein". It would be seen from a comparison of these provisions that, whereas under the old Code it was wholly the discretion and decision of the State Government to alter the limits or the number of every sessions division, the new Code has laid it down that it can bs so done "after consultation with the High Court". The change brought about in section 9 of the new Code is also of special significance. Whereas section 9 (2) of the old Code vested the State Government with the power to direct at what place or places the court of session shall ordinarily hold its sitting, under the new Code every court of session shall be presided over by a Judge to be appointed by the High Court which formerly was under section 9 (1) of the old Code within the domain of the State government exclusively. So also, while the place or places where a Sessions Judge would ordinarily and normally hold sitting was to be fixed in accordance with the direction of the State Government, now under the new Code the same has been expressly enjoined to be within the exclusive domain of the High Court. These being the salient statutory provisions it falls upon us to consider the true meaning of the term "after consultation with" occurring in section 7 (2)and (3) of the new Code. 4. The point that this change has been brought about in pursuance of article 50 of the Constitution of India laying down a directive principle of state policy can hardly be overemphasised. Although to rigid an adherence to Montesquiens concept of separation of powers no longer holds the field, yet even a flexible concept of it recognises the independence of judiciary and its immunity from executive influence and interference as a part of any healthy democratic set up. Article 50 of the Constitution is an instance of a constitutional provision immunding the judiciary from any such influence or interference by the executive. What can possibly be purpose behind the amendment of sections 7 and 9 of the old Code Can the State Government take a unilateral decision in regard ;o creation or alteration of the limits of a sessions division These are the questions in the first instance to be answered. Consultation with the high Court, in the context, must be held to be obligatory. Indeed, the learned advocate-General appearing for respondent no.1 did riot challenge that the consultation with the High Court envisaged by section 7 of the new Code was obligatory and not directory. 5. If such a consultation is a must then an obligation having been cast on the State Government to consult the High Court, the High Court is entitled, upon being consulted, to ask for relevant materials. Such a consultation must not be an empty formality ; it must be effective. 5. If such a consultation is a must then an obligation having been cast on the State Government to consult the High Court, the High Court is entitled, upon being consulted, to ask for relevant materials. Such a consultation must not be an empty formality ; it must be effective. To use the language of the supreme Court in the case of Chtandramuleshwar Prasad V/s. The Patna High court, ( AIR 1970 SC 370 ), while that Court was dealing with the term in consultation with the High Court" in Article 233 (1) of the Constitution : "consultation or deliberation is not complete or effective before the parties thereto make their respective points of view known to the other or others and discuss and examine the relative merits of their views". This concept of effective consultation has been recently accepted by the Supreme court in the case of Union of India V/s. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth, ( AIR 1977 sc 2328 ). To borrow the language of Untwalia, J. in paragraph 124 of the judgment in Sankalchands case (supra), all the necessary facts in support of the proposed action must be communicated to the High Court and all its doubts and queries must be adequately answered by the State Government in order to fulfill the legal criteria of consultation effective as it must be. 6 What is the effect of the correspondence referred to earlier I am constrained to draw an inference from the correspondence between the Registrar of the High Court and the Principal Secretary to the State Government that the attitude of the State Government has been in this matter : "whatever be the opinion of the High Court, irrespective of any fresh and good reasons which the High Court may be enquiring about, the proposal of the State Government is its ultimate decision". Can this be said to be effective consultation The idea of consultation will be rodded of all its purposeful content if it were to be treated as effective consultation. To use the language of Krishna Iyer. J. in Sankalchands case (supra), the term consultation in the context means "serious, deliberate seeking of informed advi e, competent guidance and considered opinion" not casual. To use the language of Krishna Iyer. J. in Sankalchands case (supra), the term consultation in the context means "serious, deliberate seeking of informed advi e, competent guidance and considered opinion" not casual. Even at the cost of repetition, I may state that what the Principal Secretary has finally written in annexure J. , dated 10-2-78 in response to the High Courts query with regard to any fresh and g:;od reason for suggesting the revision is that whatever had been said in the letter of the principal Secretary, dated 17-12-77 (annexure F) was final and the State government had nothing more to say. This was merely denying to the High Court any fresh or good reasons for the revision of the earlier notification dated 9-11-76 (annexure A ). The High Court was denied the reasons impelling the state Government to revise an earlier decision taken by the State Government after consultation with the High Court. This amounts to rendering nugatory the provision of consultation as envisaged by section 7 of the new Code. The learned Advocate-General contended that adequacy of the reasons, or, for that matter, the failure to accept the opinion of the High Court cannot be said to be a justiceable matter. Although I agree that the adequacy of the reasons may not be justiceable, the question is : has any reason having any bearing upon the issue been given by the State Government If yes, cadit quaesiio, the point may be answered in favour of the learned Advocate-General. But, in my view, no reason worth the name has been given for changing or revising the earlier decision of the State Government at all. 7. For the reasons given above, the notification under challenge dated 6-4-78 (annexure 1) cannot be said to have passed the criterion of any effective consultation with the High Court, thus making it liable to be struck down as being contrary to what the Legislature has laid down expressly in section 7 of the new Code. I would accordingly allow the application and quash the notification dated 6-4-78 as contained in annexure 1. I shall, however, make no order as to cost. Application allowed.