S.B. Sanyal, J. The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Registrar and the Joint Registrar of the Patna High Court to ascertain from respondent no. 3. a Judge of this Court, as to whether the cases in which the petitioner appears as counsel shall be beard by the learned Judge or not. A further direction has been sought for commanding the Registrar of this Court not to list the cases in which the petitioner appears as a counsel before the said learned Judge. 2. It has been alleged that there has been some unpleasant happening between the counsel and the said learned Judge resulting in initiation of a contempt proceeding against the said learned Judge. The said contempt proceeding was dismissed as being not maintainable by a judgment of the Special Bench, reported in AIR 1986 Pat 65 . It has been averred that since then the Judge concerned has not been hearing and transferring the cases from his Court whenever the petitioner appears as a counsel. A list of cases has been disclosed in the writ petition which have been transferred by the learned Judge from his Court between the period December 1989 and January 1990. It has been contended that this attitude of the learned Judge causes considerable delay in the disposal of the cases in which the petitioner appears as a counsel. Faced with this situation, the petitioner moved the Chief Justice with slap in an open Court who was pleased to observe that it is for the learned Judge to give in writing that he would not hear the cases in which the petitioner appears as a counsel and he could not do anything in the matter. 3. The learned Judge has also not given anything in writing to the effect that the cases in which the petitioner appears as a counsel, be not listed before him names of three junior advocates attached to the petitioner have been given out who generally act as an advocate on record. 4. It has been stated in the writ petition that on assumption of office by the present chief Justice the system introduced for listing of cases is subjectwise before the Benches comprising of various Hon’ble Judges. Since the introduction of the said system the cases of the petitioner are being listed before the concerned Judge. 5. 4. It has been stated in the writ petition that on assumption of office by the present chief Justice the system introduced for listing of cases is subjectwise before the Benches comprising of various Hon’ble Judges. Since the introduction of the said system the cases of the petitioner are being listed before the concerned Judge. 5. Inspite of "spectacular advance of-the law relating to mandamus conferring wide powers on the High Courts to issue writs in the nature of prerogative writs" as laid down and relied upon by petitioner in the case of Sri Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarn Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & others Vs. V. R. Rudani and others (A. I. R. 1989 S. C. 1607), - we do not think the power has been made so wide as to issue a direction to know in advance from a Judge how he is going to exercise his jurisdiction in a particular case. 6. The petitioner in this case wants us to command the Registry to find out from the learned Judge, who generally presides over a Division Bench, as to what would be his approach in a case listed before him when the petitioner appears as a counsel. The very fact that the learned Judge has not given out in writing that the cases of the "petitioner may not be listed before him, implies that be may hear him or may not hear him in a particular case. In effect, the petitioner wants us to issue a writ of mandamus to a Bench of coordinate jurisdiction commanding to disclose how he-is going to exercise his discretion in cases, where the petitioner appears as a counsel, even though the disclosure is sought from the learned Judge through the Registry. This, we think, is impermissible. We cannot do a thing indirectly which we cannot do directly. 7. The wide powers conferred on the - Court, as held in case reported in A.I.R. 1989 S. C. 1607 do not take within their ambit the power of a Bench of the High Court to issue a writ on another Bench of coordinate jurisdiction of the same High Court. Several Benches constitute the High Court and it is not permissible for one Bench to issue writs as against that other Bench of the same Court. Grant of the relief will lead to judicial anarchy and indiscipline. Several Benches constitute the High Court and it is not permissible for one Bench to issue writs as against that other Bench of the same Court. Grant of the relief will lead to judicial anarchy and indiscipline. Our attention has also been drawn to the case of Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhathija and others Vs. The Collector, Thane (A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 261) which has no application to the dispute before us. 8. I find no merit in this writ petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission. B. K. Roy J. 9. I would have repeated the usual words "I agree" signed and silenced myself but silence is not always golden. Thus while agreeing with the order proposed by my learned Brother; I proceed to record my own reasons: The reliefs claimed:- 10. The petitioner, who is an Advocate, has come up to this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to issue Writs/Orders/Directions in the nature of mandamus for (i) commanding this court (Respondent no.1) through its Registrar (Respondent no. 2) to ascertain from Respondent No.3 (Hon'ble Mr. Justice) i.e. one of us, whether he shall hear the petitioner in the cases in which be appears as a counsel; (ii) to delist the cases, in which he appears as a counsel before Respondent No.3 in the event he declines to hear his cases alternatively; and (iii) for issuance of an appropriate Direction/Order or Declaration not to keep his case on the list of Respondent no.3 The facts:- 11. The petitioner alleges that earlier during course of hearing of a civil revision application some remarks were made by Respondent No.3 which led to filing of a petition for initiating proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act and since then Respondent no.3 began to transfer the cases in which he appeared as a counsel and in fact Respondent No.3 has not heard a single case in which he had appeared. This fact was brought to the notice of the then Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The then Deputy Registrar (Judicial) gave standing instructions to the List Section of this Court not to list the cases of the petitioner before Respondent no.3. Thereafter the cases of his office were not listed and if a case was listed by mistake, the same used to be delisted and placed before another appropriate Bench. The then Deputy Registrar (Judicial) gave standing instructions to the List Section of this Court not to list the cases of the petitioner before Respondent no.3. Thereafter the cases of his office were not listed and if a case was listed by mistake, the same used to be delisted and placed before another appropriate Bench. However, the present Hon'ble Chief Justice introduced a system of listing cases subject wise before different benches. Thereafter the cases of the petitioner started being listed before Respondent No.3. Respondent no. 3 transferred some of the cases, as mentioned in paragraph 14 of the writ petition, but only after they remained in the list for months. After retransfer, his cases are being listed at the bottom in the list of other Benches which results in their delayed hearing. A request was made before the present Hon'bIe Chief Justice not to list his cases before Respondent No. 3 but it was observed by him that It is for the Respondent No.3 to give a direction that he would not like to hear cases in which the petitioner appears and that he is unable to do anything in the matter; The submissions:- 12. We had heard Mr. A. who appeared in person, at great length his main thurst that his fundamental right to profession stands breached by the action/non action of Respondent no. 3 as well as the Hon'ble Chief Justice and thus this Court which is competent should issue a writ of Mandamus or any other Order/Direction to the Respondents in relation to the reliefs claimed by him. He also placed reliance on four judgments of the Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 806, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 537, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1976 and A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 269. 13. We also heard Mr. S.N. Jha learned Standing Counsel No.1, to whom the brief of this case was related by the learned Advocate General on whom under Rules of this Court, a copy of the writ application was served. Mr. Jha submits that this writ petition is not maintainable and thus it should be dismissed summarily at its admission stage. My findings: 14. Reasoned order could not be passed on 28.2.90 because of paucity of time. 15. Admittedly Respondent No. 3 is not subordinate to us. Therefore, Article 227 of the Constitution of India, on the face of it, cannot be invoked. 16. My findings: 14. Reasoned order could not be passed on 28.2.90 because of paucity of time. 15. Admittedly Respondent No. 3 is not subordinate to us. Therefore, Article 227 of the Constitution of India, on the face of it, cannot be invoked. 16. The plight of this Court, which is only at the present 11 short of its sanctioned strength, in taking up cases for their Admission/Hearing is no secret. There are cast’s and cases numbering from 450 plus to 1000 plus writ cases alone before specially constituted 5-6 Division Benches on our daily board, pending merely for their admission alone. Still we entertain a request made many learned member of the Bar or litigant to take up emergent ones out of turn and we do take up them out of turn if we really find that there would be a failure of justice. 17. Rule 10 A Chapter II Part I of the Rule of the High Court at Patna, 1916 runs as follows: "Subject to the provision of these rules the Chief Justice shall direct what case or classes of cases shall be placed before each Judge or Bench." 18. A bare reading of the aforesaid Rule makes it clear that the Chief Justice of this High Court has been vested with the discretionary powers as to what case or classes of cases shall be placed before a particular Judge either sitting singly or in Bench-Division/Special/Full. This rule does not permit transfer of cases, already listed before Judge or Judges, or direct placing, on the basis of appearance of a particular counsel in a case or class of cases, before any Bench. 19. There is no law under which a pending case can be transferred from one Judge to another Judge of the same Court which is apparent from the judgment in Sukhdeo Singh Vs. Hon'ble Chief Justice S. Teja Singh & the Hon'ble Judges of the Pepsu High Court reported in 1954 S.C.R. 456 (=A. I. R. 1954 S. C. 186) wherein it was also clearly laid down by the Supreme Court that if the judge concern refuses to transfer a case there is no breach of fundamental right. This is apparent from the following observations:- "As for transfer from one Judge to another there again there is no original jurisdiction which we can exercise. This is apparent from the following observations:- "As for transfer from one Judge to another there again there is no original jurisdiction which we can exercise. It is not a fundamental right and so Article 32 has no application and there is no other law to which recourse can be had. "(emphasis added). 20. Mr. Justice S.C. Pratap of the Bombay High Court in R.J. Mehta Vs. His Lordship The Chief Justice reported in A.I.R. 1982 Bombay 125 considered in paragraphs some what a similar question and answered as follows:- “ So far as assignment of work is concerned, it is-subject, of course, to the rules of the High Court,-the exclusive right, duty and privilege of the learned Chief Justice. Contention, however, has been that the time has come to lay down norms in that behalf. But in a sphere so sensitive and with many a delicate aspect and element entering the field, the norms are best left undefined and best left to the good judgment and discretion of the learned Chief Justice. A, system which has by and large worked well for a century and more is best left undisturbed. Counsel contends that assignment of work is an administrative function and, therefore, subject to judicial review. Even assuming it to be so, every singular administrative function is not judicially reviewable. Save and except perhaps in a case of a patent and clear breach of the express rules affecting the jurisdiction of the court, I am not prepared to go to the length of holding that this function is justifiable and can therefore, be judicially reviewed, and controlled." 21. The same learned judge also proceeded to observe as follows:- "But if I am right in the view I have taken, these questions are not amenable to judicial process and legal redress. Every public question is not capable of constitutional adjudication. Judicial independence and public confidence therein is not and cannot be a matter of writs and injunctions. It is much too sacred to be secured and sustained through such strait jacket formulae." 22. I am in full agreement with the aforementioned observations. 23. It is for a judge concerned to issue a direction in his discretion as to which counsel he would not like to hear. A counsel cannot choose a particular Judge of his like and dislike. I am in full agreement with the aforementioned observations. 23. It is for a judge concerned to issue a direction in his discretion as to which counsel he would not like to hear. A counsel cannot choose a particular Judge of his like and dislike. once a case is listed in the list of a particular Judge it cannot be delisted by anyone of us except him alone on the apparent ground that any delisting will amount to interference in his administration of justice. In my view the Hon'ble the Chief Justice has correctly expressed his helplessness in the matter, as stated by the petitioner himself. The decisions relied upon by Mr. A. does not support his submissions. 24. Before I close this unfortunate chapter, I wish we could remember the following observations made by the apex Court in Sukhdeo Singh's case (supra): "All we can say is that this must be left to the good sense of the Judges themselves who, we are confident, will comfort themselves with that dispassionate dignity decoram which befits their high office and will bear in mind the of quoted maxim that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done by an concerned." (Emphasis added) AS. Application dismissed