Honble JAIN, J.–These cases have been referred to me by Honble the Chief Justice to decide the following question:- ``Whether on the proper interpretation of Sec. 15 of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995, the words `has been heard in part or heard but judgment not delivered on or before the date of coming into force of the Act of 1995 would mean that the status of the proceedings in the High Court should be part heard on this date or it would include the case where the matter was part-heard, ceased to be part heard on the retirement of one of the Judges of the Bench on 16.9.1995 ? (2). The point in dispute is as to whether a case which is part heard and because of subsequent event it ceases to be part heard, whether it can be considered to be a matter which has been heard in part. The words `has been heard in part used in the proviso refers to the status not only of the earlier date, but the date till 16.9.95 and that matter or proceedings should be considered as part heard onthat date. Honble Justice V.K. Singhal, while interpreting Sec. 15(1) of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 and Rule 74 of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952 has held that words `has been heard in part cannot be interpreted to include a case which ceases to be part heard subsequently for any reason. Rule 74 of the Rules of 1952 provides that a case which remained partheard at the end of the day shall be treated as such till the Judge next sits and 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. (3). On the other hand, Honble Justice M.A.A. Khan has expressed the viewthat once a Bench of this Court has heard a matter either in full or in part, it becomes a matter `heard or `heard in part by the High Court notwithstanding the fact that the jurisdiction of hearing such matter has been completed by one or more Benches of the High Court in regular or intermittent sittings or succession. In other words once a matter has been heard by a Bench of the High Court it does not looseits character simply because the Bench which commenced the hearing of the matter could not complete the hearing of the matter for one reason or the other. Considering this, Honble Mr. Justice Khan has held that it will be deemed to be a part heard matter for all times to come whether the concerned Judge has retired or ceased with the matter of the High Court. (4). Shri Paras Kuhad, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that it is not necessary that a case should be part heard and it is sufficient if it is heard in part. On the other hand, Shri B.P. Agrawal, the learned Advocate General, has contended that this case was not part heard by the regular Bench after retirement of Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Verma and, as such, it has to be heard by theTribunal. Shri Bhanwar Bagri, the learned counsel for the Union of India, has contended that the case was rightly transferred to the Tribunal and calling of the case by the Dy. Registrar (Judl.) without any specific order of this Court will not help the petitioners and that this court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matters. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear these cases. Evenin view of the decision of the Apex Court the appeal will lie to the High Court against the order of the Tribunal and will be heard by the Division Bench. (5). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case and have also gone through the respective reasoning of the brother Judges. (6). The arguments of Shri Paras Kuhad that it is not necessary that a case should be part heard and it is sufficient if it is heard in part is not tenable and, if it is taken, then all cases should not have been sent to the Tribunal under Sec. 15 of the Act of 1995 as in all cases the court must have heard them before issuing the notices. A proviso has to be construed as to harmonise it so that purpose of the Actcan be given effect. A proviso has to be construed as to harmonise it so that purpose of the Actcan be given effect. That apart, this case was not heard in part by the regular Division Bench on or before the stipulated date i.e. 16.9.1995. (7). It is relevant to note that prior to coming into force of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 (Act No. 19 of 1995) pending writ petitions were to be decided by the High Court. On receiving the assent of the Governor on 20.5.1995,the Government, vide Notification dated 10.10.1995, specified 16.10.1995 as the date on and from which the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Act shall come into force. Whereas Sec. 5 of the Act provides for application of the Act to specified State Acts, Sec. 6 thereof provides for the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal to be specified by the State Government. Sec. 15 of the Act provides fortransfer of pending cases from the High Court and proviso to Sec. 15(1) thereof provides that if any matter or proceedings other than appeal has been heard in part of heard but judgment is not delivered on or before the aforesaid date i.e. 16.9.1995, the provisions of the above section shall not apply, meaning thereby, such matters have to be decided by the High Court. Considering the facts on the basis of above,it reveals that this writ petition, which was pending since 24.6.1994, came to be heard in part on 27.10.1994 by the Division Bench consisting of Honble Anshuman Singh and R.S. Verma, JJ. It again came to be marked as `heard in part on 28.10.1994. Order-sheet dated 20.1.1995 shows that the case was ordered to be listed before the regular Bench on 24.2.1995, but the same came to be listed on5.5.1995 before the regular Bench consisting of Honble Anshuman Singh and Arun Madan, JJ, on which date, hearing did not take place. The case was ultimately transferred to the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal. (8). A case, which has been heard in part by a particular Judge/Bench, has to be heard by the same Judge/Bench, otherwise purpose of making the cases `partheard would be frustrated. The case was ultimately transferred to the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal. (8). A case, which has been heard in part by a particular Judge/Bench, has to be heard by the same Judge/Bench, otherwise purpose of making the cases `partheard would be frustrated. So, in my view, if a case has been marked as part-heard by a Judge and thereafter, further hearing is not completed and the Judge concerned has retired, the case ceases to be part heard automatically and such case is deemed to have been released from part heard. In the instant case, Honble R.S. Verma, J., who was a member of the Division Bench hearing the case in part, hasretired on 8.1.1995 without delivering the judgment. After retirement of Honble Verma, J. the case was listed before the regular Division Bench on 5.5.1995, on which date, it was adjourned to 18.5.1995, meaning thereby, the regular Division Bench has never undertaken exercise to hear the matter on merits for the purpose of final adjudication and, as such, it cannot be treated as part heard, heard in partor heard on the specified date i.e. 16.9.1995. Of-course, if the Judge concerned would not have retired, and so also if the regular Division Bench could have started hearing the case by applying its mind, the case could have been treated to be part heard on the stipulated date and it could have been retained by the High Court, but, as stated above, this was not the position. Therefore, with great respect, I am not agree with the view that once a case has been heard in part and the Judge concerned has retired it will be deemed to have been part heard for all times to come for the purpose of the Act. At the same time, I am of the view that rule 74 of the Rules of 1952 is only applicable in the cases where the Judge has not retired but the case is not heard for more than two months on account of absence of the Judge concerned, then the Honble Chief Justice may order such part heard case to be laid before any other Judge to be heard afresh. This rule is not applicable in the cases where the Judge has retired. A reference can be made to the order dated 15.4.1996 passed by this court in case ``The State of Rajasthan & Anr. This rule is not applicable in the cases where the Judge has retired. A reference can be made to the order dated 15.4.1996 passed by this court in case ``The State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. M/s. JaipurPolyopin Ltd. & Ors. passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 436/91, deciding the aforesaid controversy before this reference was made on 22.5.1996. (9). In view of above, I hold that Sec. 15 of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 does not include the words `has been heard in part or heard but judgment is not delivered on or before the date of coming into force of the Act of 1995, wherethe matter was part heard, ceased to be so on retirement of one of the Judges constituting the Bench on 16.9.1995 (as has been mentioned in the order of reference). Accordingly, the question referred is answered as above. These cases are ordered to be transferred to the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal, Jaipur as provided under Section 15(1) of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995. (10). The files be put up before the Honble Chief Justice.