JUDGMENT Gupta, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 24.12.97 of the learned Single Judge whereby he has refused to entertain the writ application filed by the appellants and instead directed that the matter be placed before the Green Bench constituted to hear Pollution and Environmental Cases. The Order of the learned Single Judge challenging this appeal reads as under : “24.12.97 This matter relates to an Order passed by the Pollution Control Board. Therefore, in my opinion, it must be placed before the Division Beach which is taking the environmental matters. Let this matter be placed before the appropriate Bench on 5th of January, 1998. Sd/- Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J." 2. Mr. Panja, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants has contended that the writ application filed by his clients under Article 226 of the Constitution of India did not relate as such to pollution and environmental matters but sought to challenge an order passed by the Pollution Control Board regulating the work of the Brick Kilns. According to Mr. Panja this did not come within the purview and scope of the Green Beach entrusted with the hearing of the pollution and environmental matters Mr. Panja also argued that the learned Single Judge ought not have himself directed that the matter be placed before the Green Beach and instead should have directed that the matter be referred to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for being placed before the appropriate Bench. 3. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the writ application filed by the appellants was actually relatable to a pollution and environmental matter and that it should have been heard by a Division Bench constituted for hearing the pollution and environmental matters, popularly called as the Green Bench. 4. We have given our careful consideration to the rival contentions advanced at the Bar. 5. In a Judgment dated 16th April, 1996 in writ petition (C) No. 380/95, (1) Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. their Lordships of the Supreme Court made observations with regard to adjudication of disputes relating to environmental and pollution control and accordingly by transferring the writ petition filed in the Supreme Court to Calcutta High Court for disposal directed that Bench be designated appropriately to consider and deal with environmental and pollution control matters. their Lordships of the Supreme Court made observations with regard to adjudication of disputes relating to environmental and pollution control and accordingly by transferring the writ petition filed in the Supreme Court to Calcutta High Court for disposal directed that Bench be designated appropriately to consider and deal with environmental and pollution control matters. It was also directed by their Lordships that such Bench can consider and monitor various issues involved in such cases which may relate to such matters as and when these are filed in the High Court. The following relevant extract from the judgment is quoted for ready reference :- "We are of the view that it would be appropriate to transfer this petition to the Calcutta High Court for consideration and necessary action. Because of the distance and various other problems it would be better that the matter is dealt at the High Court level. We request, Mr. Justice V.N. Khare, Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to designate an appropriate Bench to consider and deal with environmental and pollution control matters including the present petition. The Bench can consider and monitor various issues involved in this writ petition and other petitions as and when they are filed before the High Court. We give liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court as and when it becomes necessary for him to do so." 6. What are the matters relating to environmental and pollution control? Does each and every case relating to environment and pollution control, irrespective of whether it actually mayor may not emanate from a grievance relating to environmental and pollution menace amount to a matter of environmental and pollution control? What are the matters relating to environmental and pollution control? Does each and every case relating to environment and pollution control, irrespective of whether it actually mayor may not emanate from a grievance relating to environmental and pollution menace amount to a matter of environmental and pollution control? Can cases be appropriately classified to fall within and outside the ambit and scope of the expression "environment and pollution control matters" or whenever a person, either aggrieved by an .act or apprehended act of causing pollution or an other person aggrieved of an act emanating from Pollution Control Board and being accused of causing pollution, comes to Court, would all such matters fall within the scope of the aforesaid expression For example, in the case before us the appellants did not approach this Court with any complaint regarding pollution being caused as such, but actually wanted this Court to set aside an Order of the Pollution Control Board whereby they were directed to erect pollution control systems and unless It was done, they were told that they would not be granted the licences or the renewal of licences for running or operating the Brick Kilns. Would each and ever, administrative order or' would each and every executive direction issued by authority dealing with pollution control of environmental control be such a cause of action for a writ petitioner as to fall within the scope of "environmental and pollution control matters" and thus referable exclusively to the Green Bench constituted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court in pursuance of the aforesaid directions of the Supreme Court. Would therefore the normal writ jurisdiction of this Court, exercisable by a Single Bench dealing with various subjects give way to the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the Green Bench. Undoubtedly even the Green Beach entertaining matters relating to pollution and environmental control exercises writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Would therefore such jurisdiction exercisable by an appropriate Single Bench in accordance with the Rules of business of this Court be ousted from that Single Bench and be exercisable by the Green Bench. These are the issues which arise for consideration in this appeal. 7. In the case of (2) State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand reported in 1998 (1) SCC 1. These are the issues which arise for consideration in this appeal. 7. In the case of (2) State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand reported in 1998 (1) SCC 1. their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that the Chief Justice of the High Court being the master of the roster has full power, authority and jurisdiction in the matter of allocation of business of the High Court and that it is the prerogative of the Chief Justice to constitute Benches of the High Court and to allocate work to such Benches. While referring to the specific provisions relating to the Rajasthan High Court their Lordships made the following Observations:- “A careful reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Ordinance and Rule 54 (supra) shows that the administrative control of the High Court vests in the Chief Justice of the High Court alone and that it is his prerogative to distribute business of the High Court both judicial and administrative. He alone has the right and power to decide how the Benches of the High Court are to be constituted : which Judge is to sit alone and which cases be can and is required to hear as also as to which Judges shall constitute a Division Bench end what work those Benches shall do. In other words the Judges of the High Court can sit alone or in Division Benches and do such work only as may be allotted to them by an order of or in accordance with the directions or the Chief Justice. That necessarily means that it is not within the competence or domains or any Single or Division Bench of the Court to give any direction to the Registry in that behalf which will run contrary to the directions of the Chief Justice. Therefore in the scheme of things judicial discipline demands that in the event a Single Judge or a Division Bench considers that a particular case requires to be listed before it for valid reasons, it should direct the Registry to obtain appropriate orders from the Chief Justice. The Puisne Judges are not expected to entertain any request from the Advocates of the parties for listing of case which does not strictly fall within the determinated roster. In such cases, it is appropriate to direct the Counsel to make a mention before the Chief Justice and obtain appropriate orders. The Puisne Judges are not expected to entertain any request from the Advocates of the parties for listing of case which does not strictly fall within the determinated roster. In such cases, it is appropriate to direct the Counsel to make a mention before the Chief Justice and obtain appropriate orders. This is essential for smooth functioning of the Court. Though, on the judicial side the Chief Justice is only the "first amongst the equals", on the administrative side in the matter of Constitution of Benches and making of roster, he alone is vested with the necessary powers. That the power to make roster exclusively vests in the Chief Justice and that a daily cause list is to be prepared under the directions of the Chief Justice as is borne out from Rule 73, which reads thus ;- "73. Daily Cause List.-The Registrar shall subject to such directions as the Chief Justice may give from time to time cause to be prepared for each day on which the Court sits, a list of cases which may be heard by the different Benches of the Court. The list shall also state the hour at which and the room in which each Bench shall sit. Such list shall be known as the Day’s List.” 8. On an overall consideration of the issues involved the observations made by their Lordships in their Judgment at Para 23 also appear to be very pertinent to us. Para 23 reads thus ;- "The above opinion appeals to us and we agree with it. Therefore, from a review of the statutory provisions and the casts on the subject as rightly decided by various High Courts to which reference has been made by us, it follows that no Judge or a Bench of Judges can assume jurisdiction in a case pending in the High Court unless the case is allotted to him or them by the Chief Justice. Strict adherence of this procedure is essential for maintaining judicial discipline and proper functioning of the Court. No departure from it can be permitted. If every Judge of a High Court starts picking and choosing cases for disposal by him, the discipline in the High Court would be the casualty and the administration of Justice would suffer. No legal system can permit machinery of the Court to collapse. No departure from it can be permitted. If every Judge of a High Court starts picking and choosing cases for disposal by him, the discipline in the High Court would be the casualty and the administration of Justice would suffer. No legal system can permit machinery of the Court to collapse. The Chief Justice has the authority and the jurisdiction to refer even a part-heard case to a Division Beach for its disposal in accordance with law where the Rules so demand. It is a complete fallacy to assume that a part heard case can under no circumstances be withdrawn from the Bench referred to a larger Bench even where the Rules make it essential for such a case to be heard by a larger Beach." 9. In our opinion therefore. In a situation where a doubt has arisen about the nature of a particular case with respect to the Bench to which it may be referred to or assigned for adjudication and/or whether a particular case would fall within a particular jurisdiction or not, it is ideal that the matter is referred to the Chief Justice for his decision on the administrative side and for assignment/allocation to a Bench having jurisdiction to hear the matter, as per the allocation of business made by the Chief Justice. In our opinion therefore whenever a dispute or a confusion arises with regard to the hearing of the writ application, viz. whether writ application has to be heard by the Green Bench or the Single Bench exercising normal jurisdiction under Rules of business. It is more appropriate for the learned Single Judge to refer the matter back to the Hon'ble Chief justice for allocating it to a proper Bench. While saying so, we may also observe that the Hon'ble Chief Justice may, in the exercise of his administrative powers specify in the Rules of business of the High Court as to which type of cases, broadly and generally speaking would fall within the scope and ambit of the expression "environmental and pollution control, matter" and thus referable to the Green Bench so that an, such confusion or controversy in future is avoided. 10. 10. Based on the aforesaid observations therefore, we are firmly of the view that the learned Single Judge should not have, in the facts and circumstances of this case himself referred the matter to the Green Bench and should have either sent it to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for reference/assignment to an appropriate Bench or should have himself made observations to that effect, without Issuing positive directions about such reference. We accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the Judgment and Order of the learned Single Judge. We direct that the matter be placed before the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice for reference/allocation/assignment of the same to an appropriate Bench. We also request the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice to consider on the administrative side the desirability of specifying the types of cases, as far as possible, broadly and generally speaking which may strictly fall within the jurisdiction of the Green Bench and/or the appropriate Single Bench hearing matters under Article 226 of the Constitution. Let a plain copy of the operative portion of this Judgment counters-signed by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Advocates for the parties." Roy, J.: I agree.