Honble SETHNA, J.–This matter was placed before me on 3.9.1997 for admission. Mr. Champawat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.R. Patel, learned Public Prosecutor for the State were heard for sometime. Two contentions were raised on that day by the learned counsel Shri Champawat for the petitioner (i) that the petitioner was not rash and negligent in his driving and (ii) regarding the identity of the accused which was not proved. Going through the reasons assigned by the Courts below I was not prima facie convinced that the Courts below committed any error, but the record from the Courts below was called for on 22.8.1997 by Honble Mohd. Yamin, J. and Mr. Champawat, learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to go through the same. He, therefore, requested this Court to put up this case on 5.9.1997 as part heard. From 4.9.1997 to 12.9.1997 I was to sit in a Division Bench with my learned brother A.K. Singh, J. as per the roster effected by the learned Chief Justice on 2.2.1997. Therefore, in my order dated 3.9.1997 passed in this petition, I ordered the office to place this matter alongwith other part heard matters on 5.9.1997 at 10.30 a.m. On a separate board with a notice on the board that after the part heard matters of the single Bench are over this Court (B.J. Sethna, J.) will sit in a Division Bench with Honble A.K. Singh, J. and hear the Division matters. Office was also directed to place all part heard matters before this Court in future also on the fixed date of hearing. Accordingly, this matter was ordered to be placed on 5.9.1997 as part heard before this Court on a separate Board at 10.30 a.m. However, this matter was not placed before me on 5.9.1997 as per the order passed by the learned Chief Justice on administrative side on 3.9.1997 on the submission made by the office, which reads as under:– ``Honble The Chief Justice There will be no roster for Honble Justice B.J. Sethna for sitting in Single Bench on 5.9.1997. Those part heard matters may be listed at some other day sometime in the next week as the business of the Court would permit with my specific order. Providing roster is a prerogative of the Chief Justice which must be brought to the knowledge of the Honble Judge. Sd/- (Mukul Gopal Mukherji) Chief Justice (2). Those part heard matters may be listed at some other day sometime in the next week as the business of the Court would permit with my specific order. Providing roster is a prerogative of the Chief Justice which must be brought to the knowledge of the Honble Judge. Sd/- (Mukul Gopal Mukherji) Chief Justice (2). On 8.9.1997 when I was sitting in a Division Bench along with my learnedbrother Honble Mr. Justice A.K. Singh, Mr. Champawat mentioned in the open Court at 10.30 a.m. that this petition filed by him on behalf of the petitioner accused, which was ordered to be placed before this Court on 5.9.1997 as part heard alongwith other part heard matters was not placed by the office though this Court specifically directed the office to place this matter alongwith other part heard matters on 5.9.1997. Mr. Champawat also stated that the petitioner accused is in jail after both the Courts below convicted him for the offence u/S. 304 A IPC. Mr.Champawat further stated that he has gone through the record and he would like to address this Court on 9.9.1997. After hearing Mr. Champawat, I passed the order in open Court on 8.9.1997and directed the office to put this matter on 9.9.1997 before this Court on a separate Board alongwith other part heard matters. It was also stated that those matters will be taken after the Court work of Division Bench is over and in case the Court work of Division Bench was not over then it will be taken up at 4.30 p.m. The office was also directed to place all other part heard matters on 9.9.1997 as ordered earlier in this matter. In spite of this order the office did not place this revision petition and other part heard matters on a separate Board on 9.9.1997. (3). Below my order dated 8.9.1997 there is a submission made by the office on 8.9.1997 and the order passed by the learned Chief Justice on administrative side, which reads as under:– ``Honble Chief Justice List the case on 11.9.1997 at 3.30 p.m. Sd/- (Mukul Gopal Mukherji) Chief Justice (4). Thus, this petition and other part heard matters were not placed before this Court on 9.9.1997 also which were ordered to be placed on 5.9.1997. Thus, this petition and other part heard matters were not placed before this Court on 9.9.1997 also which were ordered to be placed on 5.9.1997. On 11.9.1997, this revision petition alongwith other part heard matters were placed on a separate Board before this Court as per the order passed by learned Chief Justice at 3.30 p.m. as Honble A.K. Singh, J. was sitting with Honble Shri M.P.Singh, J. in a Division Bench from 3.30 p.m. onwards and taking up Division Bench matters on 11.9.1997. However, those matters could not be taken up on 11.9.1997 as a senior advocate of the State Shri Satish Chand Agarwal expired and the Court was declared closed on that day. Thereafter, this criminal revision petition alongwith other part heard matters were placed before this Court at 3.30 p.m. on 12.9.1997. When this petition was called out from the order sheet I found that in spite of the specific order passed by this Court on 3.9.1997 and 8.9.1997 the office did not place this matter alongwith other part heard matters. Thereupon, Deputy Registrar (Judicial) Mr. Madani was called and asked to explain as to why the order passed by this Court on 3.9.1997 to 8.9.1997 were not complied with. He submitted that after the first order was passed on 3.9.1997 a submission was made by him on that very day (i.e. 3.9.1997) on which Honble Chief Justice passed an order, which I have quoted earlier. It was pointed out to him that not to follow the judicial order would amount to contempt. It was also noticed by this Court that all other part heard criminal revisions and writ petition were placed before this Court on 11.9.1997 at 3.30 p.m. on a separate Board except one writ petition i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2949/96. Hence, Mr. Madani was called upon to explain as to why that writ petition was not placed before this Court. He submitted that the said matter was disposed of. Therefore, Mr. Madani was directed to produce the original papers of the said writ petition which were produced by him on 12.9.1997. Then Mr. Hence, Mr. Madani was called upon to explain as to why that writ petition was not placed before this Court. He submitted that the said matter was disposed of. Therefore, Mr. Madani was directed to produce the original papers of the said writ petition which were produced by him on 12.9.1997. Then Mr. Champawat was heard for about 15 minutes, but the Court time was over at 4.30 p.m. therefore, the matters were ordered to be heard further on Monday i.e. on 15.9.1997 at 10.30 a.m. and the papers of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2949/96 were ordered to be kept with this case. Accordingly, they are kept alongwith the papers of this petition. Today, Mr. Champawat addressed this Court at length and he took me through the record. Going through the record he was able to make out a prima facie case for admission of this revision petition. Hence, this criminal revision petition is admitted. (5). Issue notice to the respondent State of Rajasthan, Mr. Bhati, learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice for the respondent State. (6). Now, the question is what action should be taken in the matter when none else but the office of this Court flouted not one but two orders passed by this Court on 3.9.1997 and on 8.9.1997 in this revision petition directing the office to place the matter on 5.9.1997and 9.9.1997, respectively. The office should have known that any judicial order passed by any Judge of this Court should be followed. It is no doubt true that it is the prerogative of the Chief Justice to constitute the Benches from time to time and make the Judges to sit alone or in Division Bench to do such work as may be allotted to them by his order in accordance with the directions, as provided u/R. 54 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 (for short ``the Ordinance). But, there is also R. 74 of the Ordinance deals with part heard cases, which reads as under:– ``74. Part-heard cases.–A case which remains part-heard at the end of the day shall, unless otherwise ordered by the Judge or Judges concerned, be placed first after miscellaneous cases, if any, in the Days List for the day on which such Judge or Judges next sit. Everypart-heard case entered in the Days List may be proceeded with whe- ther any Advocate appearing in the case is present or not. Everypart-heard case entered in the Days List may be proceeded with whe- ther any Advocate appearing in the case is present or not. Provided that if any part-heard case cannot be heard for more than two months on account of the absence of any Judge or Judges constituting the Bench, the Chief Justice may order such part heard case to be laid before any other Judge or Judges to be heard afresh. (7). Thus, all part-heard matters were required to be placed before this Court on 5.9.1997, i.e. the next date of hearing u/R. 75 the cases in which a date was fixed should have been placed in the Days List immediately after miscellaneous and part heard cases. This revision petition was not only part heard but a specific direction was issued to place this matter on 5.9.1997 by giving a fixed date. If this case was placed on 5.9.1997 as part heard on separate list at 10.30 a.m. then the petitioners counsel would have been heard and just order would have been passed. But, prima facie it appears that with a view to see that the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2949/96 which was a part heard matter is not heard by this Court, therefore, this petition and other part heard matters were not allowed to be placed before thi s Court on 5.9.1997 and 9.9.1997.For flouting the order passed by this Court on judicial side, obviously, the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) could have been held liable for contempt and against him contempt proceedigns would have been initiated, but the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) is novice and that he has acted on the order passed by the learned Chief Justice, therefore, I do not propose to initiate any proceedings against him. However, I have gone through the record of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2949/96 and the facts are shocking. It prima facie appears to this Court that for certain reasons the writ petition was withdrawn from this court and this petition alongwith other part heard matters were not placed before this Court till 11.9.1997. This revision petition alongwith other part heard criminal revisions were placed only after that writ petition has been disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court only on 10.9.1997. This revision petition alongwith other part heard criminal revisions were placed only after that writ petition has been disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court only on 10.9.1997. Prima facie it appears to me that it amounts to interference with the administration of Justice which constitute criminal contempt as defined u/S. 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. (8). Now, I will narrate brief reasons for not placing writ petition No. 2949/96 before me on 5.9.1997 and 9.9.1997 though it was part heard before me. This writ petition was filed by an Advocate of this Court as a public interest litigation petition (PIL) for the allotment of houses to the Judges of this Court at Jodhpur and for other reliefs. The same was ordered to be placed by the Chief Justice himself on 10.3.1997 as per the order passed by P.P. Naolekar, J. Before that, in absence of P.P.Naolekar, J. I passed some interim orders in it. After the matter was assigned to me I passed further interim orders before summer vacation and also after vacation. During the pendency of the writ petition on 21.6.1997 State Government passed an order declaring bungalow No. A/2 at Jaipur (which was the High Court Guest House since 1979) for the exclusive use of the CJ and A/5 at Jaipur was declared as High Court Guest House, with a condition that High Court will not ask for extra budget for it and no demand shall be made for bungalow for other High Court Judges in lieu of Bungalow No. A/2 at Jaipur. Thus, in short the official residences were provided to the CJ one at Jodhpur and another at Jaipur, where as u/S. 22- A of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 all High Court Judges including CJ are entitled for only one official residence. This was challenged by Shri Dalpat Raj Bhandari, Senior Advocate of this Court with other prayers in his application to be impleaded as a party to the writ petition. His application was granted and he was joined as the petitioner No.2 in the petition, by my order dated 29.7.1997. Mr. Bhan- dari prayed in his application that CJ cannot nominate himself and sit at Jaipur and he cannot have two residence in the State. He also challenged the notification, whereby, Jaipur Bench was established in 1979. His application was granted and he was joined as the petitioner No.2 in the petition, by my order dated 29.7.1997. Mr. Bhan- dari prayed in his application that CJ cannot nominate himself and sit at Jaipur and he cannot have two residence in the State. He also challenged the notification, whereby, Jaipur Bench was established in 1979. Then, the petition was kept on 12.8.1997 and by a brief order it was kept on 28.8.1997. On that day of 28.8.1997 there was a news item in the local daily Newspaper. ``Dainik Bhasker quoting Chief Justice saying that ``the objection raised for his stay in the Government bungalow at Jaipur is totally baseless because according to the Rules he is entitled to lookafter the work of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench as well as Jodhpur, Principal Seat, therefore, he stays for 15 days at Jaipur and 15 days at Jodhpur, and for coming to jaipur he is entitled for D.A. of Rs. 250/- per day, but he is not charging the same. And till today, all the Chief Justices, who came to Rajasthan have drawn D.A. and worked at Jaipur Bench and Jodhpur. Mr. Bhoot and Mr. Bhandari for the petitioners objected to it and submitted that when the Government accommodation is available he (CJ) is not entitled to D.A. But, Mr. Dave for the High Court submitted, that under the Rules CJ is entitled to sit for 15 days in a month at Jaipur and draw D.A. of Rs. 250/- per day which he will state in the detail reply. He also produced the copy of the order dated 1.8.1997 passed by the State Government modifying its previous order dated 21.6.1997 and declared bungalow No.A/2 as Guest House exclusive for the Chief Justice instead of his exclusive residence. Thereupon, Mr. Dave was asked to explain about the charges paid by the former Chief Justice for their stay at A/2 Guest House etc. and give reasons for it. On that day it was made clear to Mr. Bhandari that in view of the challenge pending before the Full Bench against the formation of Jaipur Bench this Court will not entertain his prayer regarding the same in this application. Therefore, no order was passed by me on 28.8.1997 regarding establishment of Jaipur Bench. and give reasons for it. On that day it was made clear to Mr. Bhandari that in view of the challenge pending before the Full Bench against the formation of Jaipur Bench this Court will not entertain his prayer regarding the same in this application. Therefore, no order was passed by me on 28.8.1997 regarding establishment of Jaipur Bench. From the record of the writ petition it appears that the Chief Justice made a mis-leading statement before the press that he is not charging D.A. and that till 1994 no former Chief Justices were paying any amount for the stay in Bungalow No. A/2 at Jaipur and illegally drawn full D.A. of Rs. 250/- per day, therefore, he was determined that no further orders are passed by me on the application made in that writ petition. Therefore, abruptly by an order dated 2.9.1997 from Jaipur he made a temporary change in the roster from 4th to 12th September, 1997 so that I may not take up that writ petition on 5.9.1997. Because of this not only that writ petition, but other part heard criminal revision petitions, wherein Law Secretary was asked to remain present before this Court could not be heard. From the record it also appears that the reply affidavit was filed by the High Court as per my order dated 28.8.1997 annexing Schedule A, B and C showing how many days the former Chief Justices G.C. Mittal, and A.P. Ravani stayed in Bungalow No. A/2 at Jaipur and paid the charges of Rs. 16/- per day (Rs. 10 for stay and Rs. 6 for using other facilities like geezer, Cooler, Heater, A.C. etc.) which they started to pay by as per the order dated 10.6.1994. Schedule `C is the chart for the present Chief Justice for his stay at Jaipur. From the above, it is clear that no Chief Justice of this Court was paying any amount for his stay in Bungalow No. A/2 at Jaipur prior to 10.6.1994 but all of them have illegally drawn full D.A. of Rs. 250/- per day which is clear from R. 2(1) (e) of the High Court Travelling Allowance Rules, 1966 and sub-rule (iv) of the Rules which is quoted in para 4 of the reply affidavit by the High Court itself. The present CJI Honble Mr. 250/- per day which is clear from R. 2(1) (e) of the High Court Travelling Allowance Rules, 1966 and sub-rule (iv) of the Rules which is quoted in para 4 of the reply affidavit by the High Court itself. The present CJI Honble Mr. Justice J.S. Verma was also one of the former Chief Justice of this Court from 1986 to 1989. He also initially stayed at Jaipur for 15 days and lateron sat more at Jaipur than Jodhpur and illegally drew full D.A. of Rs. 250/- per day for his stay at Jaipur without paying any charges to which there was an audit objection which fact was on the record of this High Court. The High Court Judges are drawing and disbursing authorities and nobody else would come to know then in that case they should be more careful while drawing such D.A. amount. It is nothing but a mis-appropriation of the public fund which is a criminal offence under the Penal Code. I passed an order on 8.8.1997 in this revision petition directing the office to place this revision petition alongwith other part heard criminal revisions and writ petitions on 9.9.1997 at 10.30 a.m. on a separate Board before this Court with a notice that same may be taken up after the Division Bench work is over or at 4.30 p.m. then hurriedly D.B. Civil Misc. Application No..../97 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2949/96 got filed through learned Addl. A.G. Shri Udawat on behalf of applicant State of Rajasthan and Divisional Commissioner stating that since the validity of the constitution of Bench at Jaipur under the Presidential order is challenged the same should be heard by Division Bench of this court. The prayer made in the application speaks volumes about the character of the matter which reads as under:– ``In view of the above submissions it is most respectfully prayed that S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2949/96, Pawan Kumar & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., pending before Single Judge may be called and be heard by the Division Bench. The prayer made in the application speaks volumes about the character of the matter which reads as under:– ``In view of the above submissions it is most respectfully prayed that S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2949/96, Pawan Kumar & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., pending before Single Judge may be called and be heard by the Division Bench. Thus, it was a D.B. application, but nobody noticed it including the office Per- haps, it has never happened in the history of this Court that the submissions were made on the application by the office on that very day and it was placed before the learned Chief Justice on administrative side for orders and the learned Chief Justice immediately passed an order on 8.9.1997 on administrative side to put up the matter for orders on 9.9.1997 at 10.30 a.m. It is well established principle of law that one cannot be a Judge in his own cause, still he specially sat in a Single Bench at 10.30 a.m. and immediately withdrawn that petition from this Court (B.J. Shethna, J.) which was a part heard matter, and ordered to place before the Division Bench of Honble M.P. Singh and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ. While passing the order the learned Chief Justice completely forgot the fact that when he sits on a Judicial side he could not have passed such order and withdrawn the matter from the other Court. This could have been done by the Chief Justice in exercise of his administrative powers but that too was not permissible in a part heard case (Rules 65, 74 & 75 of the Ordinance). Above all, that writ petition was placed immediately on the next day i.e. on 10.9.1997 before the Division Bench of Honble M.P. Singh and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ and it was dismissed as infructuous on the statement made by the learned counsel Shri Bhoot that relief sought for in the writ petition do not survive for consideration now. At this stage, I may point out a fact from the record that reply was filed on 5.9.1997 by Shri Udawat, Learned Additional A.G. for the State Government as ordered by this Court on 28.8.1997 just three days before filing of the said application for withdrawing the case from Single Bench, wherein, no such prayer was made. (9). At this stage, I may point out a fact from the record that reply was filed on 5.9.1997 by Shri Udawat, Learned Additional A.G. for the State Government as ordered by this Court on 28.8.1997 just three days before filing of the said application for withdrawing the case from Single Bench, wherein, no such prayer was made. (9). The entire facts stated above would lead to only one conclusion that the Chief Justice was determined to see that the said writ petition is not heard by me and no further order is passed. If the writ petition had really become infructuous then the same statement could have been made before this Court when this court treated the matter as part heard and this Court would have also passed the same order provided it had really become infructuous. The most interesting part of it is that the matter was disposed of by Division Bench without the second set and only on one set the Division Bench passed the order. (10). If this revision petition was heard by me on 5.9.1997, as ordered earlier on 3.9.1997, then the present petitioner would have been enlarged on bail on that day, who is ordered to be released on bail today, but the poor accused has to remain in jail for one week more only because of the action of learned Chief Justice of this Court which is not only most unfortunate, but it prima facie amounts to a strong case of criminal contempt. (11). If any other person has flouted the order of the Court or tried to interfere with the administration of justice then any Court would have immediately initiated contempt proceedings against such person, therefore, I feel that it is my duty to initiate contempt proceedings in exercise of my suo moto powers against the learned Chief Justice so that no one would say that when such contempt is committed by the person like Chief Justice no action is taken against him. Thus, the act of Shri Mukul Gopal Mukherji, the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court in withdrawing the part heard writ petition from this Court and getting it disposed of in a most suspicious circumstances and not placing that petition along with other part heard matters before this court on 5.9.1997 and 9.9.1997 as per my earlier order dated 3.9.1997 and 8.8.1997 prima facie constitute a criminal contempt. Therefore, office is directed to issue notice against Shri Mukul Gopal Mukherji, the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court to show cause as to why the contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for committing criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The office shall register this case, and give separate number to this as S.B. Cr. Misc. Contempt Petition No..../97 and title as State of Rajasthan vs. Mukul Gopal Mukherji, the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court.