BHASKAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) THESE two Writ Petitions are filed in the nature of Public Interest litigation by the Advocates of this Court assailing the Clauses 2 and 6 of the Note appended to Cause List dated 5th January 1998 and the Notification dated 8-7-1997 (hereinafter called "the impugned Orders") issued by the Registrar (Judicial) of the Karnataka High Court, in pursuance of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this High Court. ( 2 ) ). The petitioners are the practising Advocates of this Court. It is contended that the impugned note and notification are contrary to the Provisions of the Karnataka High Court Act, Rules and the Constitution of India and therefore is liable to be quashed. ( 3 ) THE Government Advocate contended that the impugned orders are legal and issued in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka High Court Act, Mysore High Court Act and Rules framed thereunder. There is no unconstitutionality, so the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. ( 4 ) TO appreciate the above contentions it is relevant to extract the Clauses 1, 2 and 6 of the note appended to the cause-list dated 5-1-98 :"1. Motions for early postings may be made only before the appropriate single Judge or Division Bench dealing with respective category of Cases. 2. The Hon'ble Judges shall not initiate orentertain applications, petitions, complaints or grievances-suo motu or otherwise-except when specifically assigned. 3. No cases be presented in the residences of the Hon'ble Judges without the specific orders of the Chief Justice, and in case the Chief Justice is not available, of the next seniormost Judge available at the headquarters. "the relevant notification dated 8-7-1997 reads as follows :"all Writ Petitions filed as Public Interest Litigations shall, with effect from 11th August 1997, be listed before the Division Bench dealing with the particular subject as per sitting list. Writ petitions filed against the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal and Karnataka Appellate Tribunal shall, with effect from 11-8-97, be listed before the Division Bench dealing with Service matters. " ( 5 ) THE impugned orders deal with the direction of the Chief Justice given to the Registry to publish along with the cause-list to make the Advocates and litigant public to note the same. " ( 5 ) THE impugned orders deal with the direction of the Chief Justice given to the Registry to publish along with the cause-list to make the Advocates and litigant public to note the same. Clause (1) of the note directs motion for earlier hearing may be made before the appropriate Bench dealing with the respective category of cases. Clause (2) provide that the Hon'ble Judges shall not initiate, entertain applications, petitions, complaints or grievances suo motu or otherwise except when specifically assigned. It means that Hon'ble Judges who are assigned the work subjectwise have to deal with only those subjects and cannot entertain any petitions and any other subjects nor they can entertain or initiate any case. Clause (6) directs that the Judges shall not entertain any case in their residences except with the order of the Chief Justice, in the absence of Chief Justice in the station, next senior most Judge available at the Headquarters. ( 6 ) THE sum and substance of the above clauses is that the Judges who are allotted the work either to sit singly or in Division Bench has to deal with allotted work only and not to entertain any application or petition not concerned with the subject allotted to them nor entertain any case at their residence without the specific orders of the Chief Justice. ( 7 ) THE first paragraph of the Notification deals with all the Writ Petitions filed as Public Interest litigation to be listed before the Division Bench pertaining to particular subjects. The Writ Petitions filed against the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal and Karnataka Administrative Tribunal shall be listed before the Division Bench dealing with the service matters. This notification has come into force from 11-8-1997. ( 8 ) THE grievance of the petitioners is that the Writ Petitions filed in the High Court originally were dealt with by the learned single Judges of the High Court including Public Interest litigation. After passing of the impugned orders the public interest litigation Writ Petitions are being posted only before the Division Benches and the same is contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules and it amounts to Chief Justice usurping the powers of other Judges. ( 9 ) TO appreciate above contentions, it is useful to trace the history of the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules. ( 9 ) TO appreciate above contentions, it is useful to trace the history of the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules. ( 10 ) THE State of Mysore was a Princely State ruled by His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore prior to independence. He enacted the Mysore Chief Court Regulation in 1884 which came into force on 28-5-1884. At that time all the three powers viz. , the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary vested with His Highness. U/s. 10 of the Regulation the Chief Court of Mysore was deemed to be the Highest Court of Civil and Criminal appeals, the reference and revision in the territories of Mysore and all the Courts, Civil and Criminal, in those territories were subject to its superintendence and control. Section 12 of that Regulation empowered the Government to confer upon the Chief Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the District Court in all suits and proceedings of Civil nature, or the ordinary original criminal jurisdiction of the Sessions Court, or both of such jurisdictions to be exercised with such local limits as the Government might from time to time, declare and appoint in that behalf. For the purpose of exercising such ordinary civil jurisdiction or ordinary criminal jurisdiction, conferred on the Chief Court, the Chief Court, had to depute one of its Judges for the purpose of conducting such proceedings, was to function as if he had been appointed as a District Judge or a Sessions Judge. ( 11 ) UNDER Section 13 of the Regulation, appeals, when allowed by law, against judgments, decrees, orders and sentences passed by a Judge of the Chief Court in exercise of the original Civil or Criminal jurisdiction conferred upon him u/s. 12, had to be heard either by a Bench consisting of two other Judges or by a Full Bench of the Chief Court. ( 12 ) SECTION 15 of the Regulation provided that all appeals, civil and criminal, to the Chief Court under any law for the time being in force, should be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than two Judges of that Court. ( 12 ) SECTION 15 of the Regulation provided that all appeals, civil and criminal, to the Chief Court under any law for the time being in force, should be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than two Judges of that Court. ( 13 ) SECTION 16b of that Regulation provided that any Judge of the High Court sitting alone should have the power to hear and dispose of civil and criminal revision cases and that the orders passed thereon should be final subject to the reference to be made by the Single Judge to the Division Bench. ( 14 ) SECTION 19 of the Regulation empowered the Chief Court to make rules to provide, inter-alia, for the exercise, by one or more Judges, of any of the powers conferred on it by that Regulation or by any other enactment for the time being in force. ( 15 ) BY the Mysore High Court (Designation) Regulation 1930 (Mysore Act XII of 1930) the words 'high Court of Mysore', 'high Court' and 'chief Justice' were substituted for the words 'chief Court of Mysore', 'chief Court' and 'chief Judge' respectively in all Acts, Regulations and laws for the time being in force. ( 16 ) WITH the advent of the Constitution of India on 26-1-1950, Mysore State became one of the States in Part-B of the First Schedule to the Constitution. As per Art. 372 of the Constitution all laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of the Constitution were continued in force therein until altered or repealed or amended by a competent Legislature or other competent authority. ( 17 ) UNDER the Andhra State Act, 1953, the District of Bellary, excluding the Taluks of Alur, Adoni and Rayadurg, was transferred to the State of Mysore and u/s. 41 of that Act the jurisdiction of the High Court of Mysore was extended to the transferred territory. Under the State Reorganization Act of 1956, ('s. R. Act' for short) the new State of Mysore was formed consisting of the territories of former States of Mysore and Coorg and certain territories of the State of Madras and of former States of Bombay and Hyderabad. Under the State Reorganization Act of 1956, ('s. R. Act' for short) the new State of Mysore was formed consisting of the territories of former States of Mysore and Coorg and certain territories of the State of Madras and of former States of Bombay and Hyderabad. ( 18 ) SECTION 49 of the S. R. Act provided for the establishment of the High Court for the new State of Mysore and Sec. 50 of the Act abolished the High Court of the former State of Mysore, as from the Appointed Day (1st November 1956 ). ( 19 ) SECTION 54 of the S. R. Act provided that subject to the provisions of part V of the Act, the law in force immediately before the Appointed Day with respect to practice and procedure in the High Court in the former State of Mysore, shall, with the necessary modifications, apply in relation to the High Court of the new State of Mysore and that the High Court of the new State of Mysore shall have all such powers to make rules and orders with respect to practice and procedure as were immediately before the Appointed day, exercisable by the former High Court of Mysore. ( 20 ) ). In exercise of the powers conferred u/s. 19 of the Mysore High Court Act, 1884, Sections 54 of the State Reorganisation Act, Art. 225 of the Constitution and Sections 122 and 129 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court of Mysore, with the previous approval of the Govt. of Mysore, made rules called 'the High Court of Mysore Rules, 1959'. The Legislature of the new State of Mysore enacted the Mysore High Court Act, 1961 (Mysore Act 5 of 1962) which received the assent of the President and came into force on 1-2-1962. The Mysore High Court Act, 1961 ('act' for short) repealed Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 16a, 20 and 22 of the Mysore High Court Act 1884. ( 21 ) AFTER the High Court Act of 1961 came into force the High Court vide notification deleted inter alia, Rules 1, 2, 3 and 4 in Chapter III of the High Court of Mysore Rules, 1959 which provided as to what matters should be heard and disposed of by a single Judge and what matters should be heard and disposed of by a Division Bench. ( 22 ) THE High Court Act, 1961, was amended by the Mysore High Court (Amendment) Act, 1973, which came into force on 16-7-73. The effect of the amendment of the High Court Act, 1961, is that on 16-7-73 petitions u/a. 226 of the Constitution (except those which relate to issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus), petitions u/art. 227 of the Constitution and cases transferred to the High Court u/art. 228 of the Constitution, should be heard and disposed of, in the first instance, by single Judge from whose decision appeals lie to Division Benches. ( 23 ) THE Parliament enacted the Mysore State (Alteration of Name) Act, 1973, which provides, inter alia, that the State of Mysore shall be known as the State of Karnataka. Under the Karnataka Adaptation of Laws Order, 1973, (made in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 6 of that Act), the name of the High Court of Mysore has been altered into the High Court of Karnataka w. e. f. 1-11-1973 and the word 'karnataka' has been substituted for the word 'mysore' in the Mysore High Court, 1884, the Mysore High Court Act, 1961, and the Mysore High Court (Amendment) Act, 1973. ( 24 ) THE High Court of Mysore (Karnataka) Rajasthan, and Kerala stand on a different footing from the other High Courts in India, in as much as these three High Courts are successors to the former High Courts of Mysore, Travancore-Cochin and Rajasthan which were part-B States. The other High Courts in India except that of Jammu and Kashmir, are successors to the High Courts in the former British India, the constitution and powers of each of which are largely governed by the letters Patent issued by the then King Emperor or the Queen Empress. The letter patent of those High Courts provided for appeals to Division Benches from decisions of the Single Judges rendered in exercise of the original jurisdiction and of certain appellate jurisdiction. So far as the High Court of Karnataka is concerned, the High Court Act, 1884 did not provide for appeals to Division Benches from decisions of single Judges of the High Court. So far as the High Court of Karnataka is concerned, the High Court Act, 1884 did not provide for appeals to Division Benches from decisions of single Judges of the High Court. Though Sec. 13 of the High Court Act, 1884 provided for appeals from the decisions of single Judges of the High Court in exercise of original Civil and Criminal jurisdictions conferred u/s. 12 of that Act, the Single Judge of the High Court exercising jurisdiction u/s. 12 of the High Court Act, 1884, acted as a District Judge or a Sessions Judge and his decisions as such, were not decisions of the High Court. Appeals from decisions of single Judges of the High Court exercising the original jurisdiction were provided for, for the first time, by Sec. 4 of the High Court Act, 1961. ( 25 ) IN the former High Court of Mysore, between 26th January 1950 and 1st November 1956 and in the new High Court of Mysore (Karnataka) between 1st November 1956 and 16-7-73, petitions u/articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and cases withdrawn by the High Court u/art. 228 of the Constitution, were heard by Division Benches from whose decisions there was no appeal within the High Court. ( 26 ) NOW, we deal with the relevant provisions of the Karnataka High Court Act 1961. Sec. 2 of the Act deals with the definitions. Sec. 4 deal with the appeals from the decisions of the learned Single Judge of the High Court which reads as follows :"an appeal from a judgment, decree, order or sentence passed by a single Judge in the exercise of the original jurisdiction of the High Court under this Act or under any law for the time being in force, shall lie to and be heard by a Bench consisting of two other Judges of the High Court. "sec. 5 and 6 deals with First and Second appeals. Sec. 7 deals with reference to Full Bench. Sec. 9 deals with other powers of a Single Judge, Sec. 10 deals with other powers of a Bench of two Judges which is as follows :"sec. 10 1. The powers of the High Court in relation to the following matters shall be exercised by a Bench of two Judges :- (i) a reference - (a) under Sec. 113 of the CPC 1908; (b) under Sec. 395 of the Cr. 10 1. The powers of the High Court in relation to the following matters shall be exercised by a Bench of two Judges :- (i) a reference - (a) under Sec. 113 of the CPC 1908; (b) under Sec. 395 of the Cr. P. C. , 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974); (ii) an application under Rule 2 of Order XLV of the First Schedule to the CPC 1908; (iii) * * * (iv) exercise of powers under Clause (1) of Art. 226, of the Constitution of India, where such power relates to the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus; (iva) an appeal from any original judgment, order or decree passed by a single Judge in exercise of the powers under Clause (1) of Art. 226, Art. 227 and 228 of the Constitution of India;) (v) all other matters not expressly provided for in this Act, or any other law for the time being in force. " ( 27 ) BY reading the above provisions it is evident that ordinarily against the decision of the Single Judge deciding the writ petition an appeal lies to the Division Bench. The Division Bench is empowered to hear the reference u/s. 113 of the CPC 1908, and u/sec. 395 of the Cr. P. C. 1973, an application u/rule 2 of Order XLV of the First Schedule of CPC 1908 and deal with the habeas corpus writ petitions and deal with the appeals from the order of the Single Judge disposing of the petitions u/art. 226 and 227 and 228 of the Constitution of India. The sub-clause (v) of S. 10 of the Act is an important one which provides, all other matters not expressly provided for in this Act, or any other law for the time being in force will be heard by the Division Benches. Thus, this is very wide residuary power. Sec. 5 of the Mysore High Court Act, 1884 envisages that Chief Justice shall have rank and precedence before the other Judges of the High Court who, as between themselves, shall have rank and precedence according to the seniority of their appointments as such Judges. Sec. 18 of the Act provides for the powers of Chief Justice for distribution of judicial work of the High Court between himself and other Judges of the said Court. Sec. 18 of the Act provides for the powers of Chief Justice for distribution of judicial work of the High Court between himself and other Judges of the said Court. Section 19 and 20 of the Act provide for Rule making power. ( 28 ) SEC. 18 of the Act vividly manifest that the power to distribute judicial work of the High Court is conferred on Chief Justice and none else. By virtue of power u/a. 225 of the Constitution of India and Sec. 54 of the S. R. Act of 1956 (Central Act 37/1956) r/w Sec. 122 and 129 of CPC 1908 and Sec. 19 of the Mysore High Court Act (Act 1 of 1884) the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959 are framed. Chapter III of the Rules deals with the Constitution of Benches. Rule 6 and 7 of the rules reads as follows :"6. Benches shall be constituted and judicial work of the Court allotted or distributed to them by or in accordance with the directions of the Chief Justice. 7. When a Single Judge refers a case to a Bench or when a Bench of two Judges refers any question to a Full Bench, then the papers of the particular case shall be placed before the Chief Justice for a reference to a Bench or for the constitution of a Full Bench. " ( 29 ) THE above Rules succinctly provided Chief Justice as the sole authority for distribution of the judicial work among Constitutional Benches of the High Court and to direct for placing of the referred cases before appropriate Benches. ( 30 ) CHAPTER XV of the Rules 1 to 7 deals with the posting and adjournment of the cases, and it provides a list of all cases admitted either by the Registrar or by the Court shall be put up on the Notice Board of the Court and such list shall contain details of the number of the case on the file of the Lower Court and the High Court and the names of the advocates or the party presenting the same and a ready list will be published and thereafter a warning list before one week of posting will be published. The cases from the warning list will be transferred to the daily list, which list shall divide into many parts as there are Benches and shall bear date and the day on which cases are posted for disposal, name and names of the Judges constituting the Bench before whom they are posted for disposal and number of Court hall in which the Bench would be sitting. Subject to the rule as to priority set out in sub-Rule (2) of this Rule and subject to special directions, if any, given by the Chief Justice or the Appropriate Bench, cases shall be transferred to the "warning list" and to the "daily List" in the order in which they appear in the "warning List". ( 31 ) THESE Rules specifically provide, the Registrar will prepare three lists, i. e. , ready list, warning list, and daily list and the cases will be posted before concerned Courts. The Chief Justice will give special directions regarding posting of any case, whereas the Single Judge or Division Bench give direction for adjourning cases posted before them only. ( 32 ) BY reading Sec. 18 of the Mysore High Court Act 1884 along with the Rule 6 of the Chapter-III of the Rules and the rules dealing with the posting of cases of the Karnataka High Court Rule 1959, it is evident that the Chief Justice is the sole supreme authority for constitution of Benches and for distribution of judicial work among the Judges of the High Court. Thus, by an analysis of the above provisions it is clear that the Chief Justice has jurisdiction to entertain any case which is filed or brought to the notice of the Court as Public Interest Litigation either on the original appellate or on the Revisional side for decisions, that the other Judges can hear only those matters which have been posted before them by the order of the Chief Justice or under his directions and other Judges do not have any general jurisdiction over all the cases or any class of cases which the High Court as a whole is competent to hear and dispose of, and their jurisdiction is limited only to the cases which are allotted to them by the Chief Justice. Therefore, the writ petitions pertaining to the Public Interest Litigation can be heard only by the Single Judge or the Bench before whom cases are posted and cannot be entertained or heard and disposed of by other Judges. If it has to be interpreted that every Judge of High Court has got jurisdiction to hear writ petitions u/art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, there will be conflicting judgments of the same case which is against cannons of judicial disposal jurisprudence. ( 33 ) THE exclusive power on the Chief Justice is essential, so that various Benches comprising of the judges sitting singly or in Division Benches etc. , work in co-ordination, so that jurisdiction of one Court is not usurped by other Court. If it has to be inferred the Judges are free to choose their own jurisdictions and cases, there will be conflicting decisions about the same subject and in the result the machinery of the Court will collapse and the judicial functioning of the Court would seize by serious internal strife on account of the hankering for a particular jurisdiction or particular case. The judicial discipline of proper functioning of the Court will hamper, that is why power is placed in the hands of the Chief Justice as the Full Authority for distribution of judicial work and for constitution of Benches. ( 34 ) NOW, we shall refer the case law on the subject. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in State v. Devi Dayal, AIR 1959 All 421 , considered the scope and powers of the Chief Justice under Art. 225 of the Constitution of India r/w relevant Rules with particular reference to Rule 1, Chapter V of the Rules of that Court. Justice Mukerji, speaking for the Division Bench has observed :". . . . . . It is clear to me, on a careful consideration of the constitutional position, that it is only the Chief Justice who has the right and the power to decide which Judge is to sit alone and which cases such Judge can decide; further it is again for the Chief Justice to determine which Judges shall constitute Divisions Benches and what work those Benches shall do. Under the rules of this Court, the rule that I have quoted above, it is for the Chief Justice to allot work to Judges and Judges can do only such work as is allotted to them. It is not in my view, open to a Judge to make an order which could be called an appropriate order, unless and until the case in which he makes, the order has been placed before him for orders either by the Chief Justice or in accordance with his directions. Any order which a Bench or a single Judge may choose to make in a case that is not placed before them or him by the Chief Justice or in accordance with his directions is an order which, in my opinion, if made, is without jurisdiction. " ( 35 ) JUSTICE P. Asthana, in the decision cited supra, in his concurring opinion has held as follows :"rule 1, Chapter 5 of the Rules of this Court, provides that Judges shall sit alone or in such Division Courts as may be constituted from time to time and do such work as may be allotted to them by order of the Chief Justice or in accordance with his directions. " ( 36 ) THE Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Niranjan Singh v. State, AIR 1974 Raj 171 , has examined ambit and scope of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 and held as follows :"it is therefore the responsibility of the Chief Justice to constitute the Division Courts of Benches. The Judges are required to sit alone or in the Division Benches and, in either case, do such work as may be allotted to them by order of the Chief Justice or in accordance with his direction. This power to allot the work to the Judges cannot be taken away, in face of the clear provision of Rule 54, merely because a date of hearing, has been fixed in a case by a particular Bench. . . . . . The Chief Justice has therefore the power "from time to time" to direct that any particular case or class of cases may be heard by a Bench of two or more Judges even though it may, ordinarily fall to be heard by a single Judge. . . . . . The Chief Justice has therefore the power "from time to time" to direct that any particular case or class of cases may be heard by a Bench of two or more Judges even though it may, ordinarily fall to be heard by a single Judge. It is well settled that the meaning of the words "from time to time" is that "after once acting the donee of the power may act again; and either independently of, or by adding to, or taking from or reversing altogether his previous act," Stroud's Judicial Dictionary. It cannot, in such a case, be said that the person who has the power to act has "completely discharged his duty when he has once acted. " The words "from time to time" have therefore been interpreted to mean "as and when it is appropriate so to do. " Re : Von Dembinska, Ex Parte the Debtor (1954) 2 All ER 46. It is thus clearly permissible for the Chief Justice to reverse any earlier order of allotment of any particular case or class of cases to a Judge sitting alone, and to direct that it may be heard by a Bench of two or more Judges. . . . . . . There is nothing in the rule to justify the argument that such a case should always be treated as "tipped up" with a Bench simply because it has once fixed the date of its hearing or that with the exception of a case in which a Bench has directed the issue of notice to the opposite party or passed an ex parte order all other cases should be deemed to be part heard. On the other hand, the use of the word "ordinarily" goes to show that if there are extraordinary reasons, even a part-heard case may not be laid before the same Bench for disposal. So far as the second sentence of Rule 66 (1) is concerned, it is really in the nature of an illustration, or an explanation. " ( 37 ) THE Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Shamrao Puranik, AIR 1982 SC 1198 , considered the power of the Chief Justice to make roster, and stated as follows :"the Chief Justice is the master of the roster. " ( 37 ) THE Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Shamrao Puranik, AIR 1982 SC 1198 , considered the power of the Chief Justice to make roster, and stated as follows :"the Chief Justice is the master of the roster. He has full power, authority and jurisdiction in the matter of allocation of business of the High Court which flows not only from the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of S. 51 of the Act, but inheres in him in the very nature of things. " ( 38 ) A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Sohan Lal Baid v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1990 Cal 168 , has dealt with this aspect elaborately. After referring to the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935, the Calcutta High Court Rules and a number of decided cases, the Bench observed :"the foregoing review of the constitutional and statutory provisions and the case law on the subject leaves to room for doubt or debt that once the Chief Justice has determined what Judges of the Court are to sit alone or to constitute several Division Courts and has allocated the judicial business of the Court amongst them, the power and jurisdiction to take cognizance of the respective classes or categories of cases presented in a formal way for their decision, according to such determination, is acquired. To put it negatively, the power and jurisdiction to take cognizance of and to hear specified categories or classes of cases and to adjudicate and exercise any judicial power in respect of them is derived only from the determination made by the Chief Justice in exercise of his constitutional, statutory and inherent powers and from no other source and no cases which is not covered by such determination can be entertained, dealt with or decided by the Judges sitting singly or in Division Court till such determination remains operative. Till any determination made by the Chief Justice lasts, no Judge who sits singly can sit in a Division Bench nor can a Division Bench be split up and one or both of the Judges constituting such Bench sit singly or constitute a Division Bench with another Judge and take up any other kind of judicial business. Till any determination made by the Chief Justice lasts, no Judge who sits singly can sit in a Division Bench nor can a Division Bench be split up and one or both of the Judges constituting such Bench sit singly or constitute a Division Bench with another Judge and take up any other kind of judicial business. Even cases which are required to be heard only by a particular single Judge or Division Bench, such as part-heard matters, review cases etc. . . . . . . cannot be heard, unless the Judge concerned is sitting singly or the same Division Bench has assembled and has been taking up judicial business under the extent determination. Such reconstitution of Benches can take place only if the Chief Justice specially determines accordingly. " ( 39 ) AGAIN, a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Mayavaram Financial Corporation Ltd. v. Registrar of Chits (1991) 2 Mad LW 80, opined :"the Hon'ble the Chief Justice has the inherent power to allocate the judicial business of the High Court including who of the Judges sit alone and who should constitute the Bench of two or more Judges. No litigant shall, upon such Constitution of a Bench or allotment of a case to a particular Judge of the Court will have a right to question the jurisdiction of the Judges or the Judge hearing the case. No person can claim as a matter of right that this petition be heard by a single Judge or a Division Bench or a particular single Judge or a particular Division Bench. No Judge on a Bench of Judges will assume jurisdiction unless the case is allotted to him or them under the orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. " ( 40 ) A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Sanjay Kumar Srivastava v. Acting Chief Justice (W. P. 2332 HB of 1993 decided on 7-10-1993) 1996 All WC 644 was confronted with a similar situation. The Full Bench precisely dealt with an objection raised in that case to the effect that since the writ petition was a part-heard matter of the Division Bench, it was not open to the Chief Justice of the High Court to refer that part-heard case to a Full Bench for hearing and decision. The Full Bench precisely dealt with an objection raised in that case to the effect that since the writ petition was a part-heard matter of the Division Bench, it was not open to the Chief Justice of the High Court to refer that part-heard case to a Full Bench for hearing and decision. It was argued before the Full Bench, that once the hearing of the case had started before the Division Bench, the jurisdiction to refer the case or the question involved therein to a larger Bench vests only in the Judges hearing the case and not in the Chief Justice. It was held that the Chief Justice could, on an application made by the Chief Standing Counsel, refer the case which had been heard in part by a Division Bench for decision by a Full Bench of that Court. ( 41 ) THE Supreme Court considered the scope and ambit of the para 44 of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949, which deals with the distribution of business and administrative control of the High Court, Rule 54 deals with the Constitution of Benches, and Rule 73 deal with Daily Cause list, and held as follows :"15. 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 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 he can and is required to hear as also as to which Judges shall constitute a Division Bench and 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 of the Chief Justice. That necessarily means that it is not within the competence or domain of 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. That necessarily means that it is not within the competence or domain of 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 determined roster. In such cases, it is appropriate to direct the counsel to make a mention before the Chief Justice and obtain appropriate order. 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 :rule 73. Daily 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. " ( 42 ) JUSTICE S. Saghir Ahmed, speaking for the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 835/94 considered the status, functions and duties of the Chief justice qua other Judges of the High Court and referred and approved judgment of the Allahabad High Court in (1996) All WC 644 and followed the judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand, AIR 1998 SC 1344 and held that the Chief Justice can in a given case, withdraw the part-heard matter and post before a Division Bench or Full Bench. ( 43 ) AFTER scrutinising various judgments of the High Court and provisions concerned thereto the Supreme Court laid down the principle as follows :"the above opinion appeals to us and we agree with it. Therefore, from a review of the statutory provisions and the cases 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. The Chief Justice has the authority and the jurisdiction to refer even a part-heard case to a Division Bench 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 and referred to a larger Bench, even where the Rules make it essential for such a case to be heard by a larger Bench. "43a. The Full Bench of this Court in ILR 1998 Kant 3230 has considered the scope and ambit of the powers of the Chief Justice with regard to posting of the cases before different Benches of the High Court. In the light of provisions of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 and Karnataka High Court Rules, 1959, it held as follows :"it also goes without saying that while exercising powers of allocation/distribution of judicial work among the Benches, it is open for the Chief Justice to devise his own method of classification of cases to ensure quick and effective disposal of cases for effective administration of justice. Such classifications can be based on any intelligible criteria like the nature of disputes involved, valuation of the subject matter, age of the case, the areas from which the cases are arising, as also as to whether the cases pertain to private or public litigation, whether the jurisdiction to be exercised is revisional, appellate, or original, whether the cases are to be instituted on regular petitions or on informations received from known or unknown sources and the like, keeping in view the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan (AIR 1998 SC 1344) (supra ). But it needs to be stressed here that the exercising of the said power by the Chief Justice by deviating from the normal rule based on the regular practice of the Court or the statutory provisions must stand the test of reason and objectivity since such exercise will be always subject to mandates of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India which absolutely prohibits the exercise of powers in a discriminatory, arbitrary or a mala fide manner and always entitle the aggrieved party to seek remedy against the same by approaching the appropriate forum. No Judge of the High Court can claim to himself any inherent power to take cognizance of a particular cause either on being moved or sue motu unless it is assigned by the Chief Justice to the Judge concerned. The extent of power of the Chief Justice and that of the Judges of the High Court has to be now treated as authoritatively determined and clearly delineated. But it may be clarified that if any learned Judge, either suo motu or on the basis of information coming to his possession, prima facie finds that any matter, not concerning the jurisdiction assigned to him, needs to be examined in the judicial side of the High Court, then, by recording his opinion in writing, he may refer the same to the Chief Justice for being placed before an appropriate Bench. " ( 44 ) THE principles laid down by the various High Courts in their Judgments stated supra are approved by the Apex Court and became the law of the land. By reading provisions i. e. , Secs. " ( 44 ) THE principles laid down by the various High Courts in their Judgments stated supra are approved by the Apex Court and became the law of the land. By reading provisions i. e. , Secs. 18 and 19 of the Mysore High Court Act, 1984, and Sec. 10 (v) of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 along with Rule 6 of Chapter III, the Constitution of Benches and allotment of judicial work, and Rule 7 of Chapter XV along with Art. 225 of Constitution of India, it is evident that the Chief Justice is the sole authority for Constitution of Benches and distribution of work among his brother Judges of the High Court. ( 45 ) THEREFORE, posting of the public interest litigations writ petitions before the Division Bench instead of a single Judge is a sole prerogative of the Chief Justice. When all the power vests in the Chief Justice the other Brother Judges will have no power or jurisdiction to entertain any petition, telegram or letter or a case on their own unless the subject is allotted to them. Hence, the petitioners cannot contend that the writ petition can be heard for admission and disposed of as it is not tenable. If the said contention is to be accepted it will lead to negation of the judicial restraint and judicial discipline. ( 46 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioners contended that the same subject is posted before the Division Bench as well as single Judge, therefore when a mention is made before a single Judge or a letter or telegram is received, he can entertain it and decide the same. The subjects are allotted to the Division Bench as well as the single Judge, for example, subjects like education, environment etc. , might have been allotted to single Judge but without cases dealing with the public interest litigation with the above subject. Thus, there is a specific distinction between subjects allotted to Division Bench and single Judge. It is already settled by the decisions of the Apex Court that the Judges has no jurisdiction to decide cases which are not allotted to them. Thus, there is a specific distinction between subjects allotted to Division Bench and single Judge. It is already settled by the decisions of the Apex Court that the Judges has no jurisdiction to decide cases which are not allotted to them. Further by the doctrine of self-restraint the Judges who receive the telegram, letter or request is made before them has to direct that the concerned case to be placed before the Chief Justice for obtaining permission to post it before the appropriate Bench when the said subject is not allotted to them. In this connection it is relevant to extract judgment of the Apex Court :"judicial restraint is a virtue. A virtue which shall be concomitant of every judicial disposition. It is an attribute of a Judge which he is obliged to keep refurbished from time to time, particularly while dealing with matters before him whether in exercise of appellate or revisional or other supervisory jurisdiction. Higher Courts must remind themselves constantly that higher tiers are provided in the judicial hierarchy to set right errors which could possibly have crept in findings or orders of Courts at the lower tiers. "therefore, we are not able to accept the above contention. ( 47 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as per Sec. 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, except habeas corpus writ petitions all other writ petitions are to be heard by the single Judge. Therefore posting of public interest litigation cases before Division Bench is contrary to the above provisions of the Section. The Karnataka Act deals with regulating business and exercise of powers by the High Court in relation to administration of justice and to provide for its jurisdiction. Sec. 4 deals with the appeals from the decision of the single Judge, Secs. 5 and 6 deals with the first and second appeals, Sec. 7 deals with reference to Full Bench, Sec. 8 deals with powers of single Judge to dispose of revision cases, Sec. 9 deals with the other powers of a single Judge. ( 48 ) BY reading Sections 8 and 9 together it is manifest that the learned single Judge can dispose of revision petitions pertaining to Civil and Criminal subjects except cases relating to quashing of orders of commitment. ( 48 ) BY reading Sections 8 and 9 together it is manifest that the learned single Judge can dispose of revision petitions pertaining to Civil and Criminal subjects except cases relating to quashing of orders of commitment. The single Judge also can dispose of the Civil cases having jurisdiction, admission of an appeal in forma pauperis, exercise of original jurisdiction under any law for the time being in force, appeals under Rule 1 of Order XLIII of First Schedule to the CPC, 1908, appeals where subject matter only relate to costs and any matter of an interlocutory character in appeals and other proceedings, admission of appeal and also the Writ Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India except Habeas Corpus. Section 10 deals with other powers of a Bench of two Judges. Section 10 (v) provides :"all other matters not expressly provided for in this Act, or any other law for the time being in force can be exercised by a Bench. "this clause (v) of Section 10 confers residuary jurisdiction to Division Bench to deal with all other matters not referred to in other sub-clauses of the Section. ( 49 ) IT is to be noticed that public interest litigation is of recent origin of 1970. When the Act was enacted the locus standi principle dominated and public interest litigation was not in existence. Therefore, the contextual interpretation has to be applied. ( 50 ) THE public interest litigation has got its special features distinguishable from inter-party litigation. Explaining the scope of the public interest litigation and locus standi Justice Krishna Iyer, in Mumbai Kamagar Sabha v. Abdulbhai, AIR 1976 SC 1455 held as follows :"test litigations, representative actions, pro bono public and like, broadened forms of legal proceedings are in keeping with the current accent on justice to the common man and a necessary disincentive to those who wish to bypass the real issues on the merits by suspect reliance on peripheral, procedural shortcomings. . . . . . Public Interest is promoted by a spacious construction of locus standi in our socio-economic circumstances and conceptual latitudinarianism permits taking liberties with individualization of the right to invoke the higher Courts where the remedy is shared by a considerable number, particularly when they are weaker. . . . . . Public Interest is promoted by a spacious construction of locus standi in our socio-economic circumstances and conceptual latitudinarianism permits taking liberties with individualization of the right to invoke the higher Courts where the remedy is shared by a considerable number, particularly when they are weaker. " ( 51 ) JUSTICE Bhagwati in S. P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 , held :"where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons and such a person or determinate class of persons is, by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the Court for relief, any member of the public can maintain an application for appropriate direction. . . . . . " ( 52 ) THE Apex Court has enlarged sphere of the public interest litigation to combat the inhuman prison conditions, horrors of bonded labour, right to speedy trial, right to legal-aid, right to livelihood, a right against pollution, a right to be protected from industrial hazards, right to human dignity and to basic needs etc. Thus, the public interest litigation is a special kind than other. ( 53 ) IT is also relevant to quote what is said by S. A. De Smith which reads as follows :"all developed legal systems have had to face the problem of adjusting conflicts between two aspects of public interest - the desirability of encouraging individual citizens to participate actively in the enforcement of the law, and the undesirability of encouraging the professional litigant and the meddlesome interloper to invoke the jurisdiction of the Courts in matters that do not concern him. "therefore, the important task of the Court is to provide justice to the affected persons in public interest litigation and to discourage professional litigant to abuse the process of Court under the garb of public interest litigation to self-serve his personal interest. Therefore, treating it as a special case keeping in view the vitality of its nature, posting before the Division Bench cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. ( 54 ) THE provisions of the Act cited supra has to be interpreted having the context in which they are being used. Therefore, treating it as a special case keeping in view the vitality of its nature, posting before the Division Bench cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. ( 54 ) THE provisions of the Act cited supra has to be interpreted having the context in which they are being used. The provisions of the Act and Rules read with Art. 225 of the Constitution have bestowed the sole power on the Chief Justice for Constitution of Bench and distribution of work among the appropriate Judges. So, the Chief Justice has got power to post the public interest litigation cases before Division Bench and Division Bench has got jurisdictional authority as per Sec. 10 (v) of the Act. ( 55 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioners further contended that by posting public interest litigation case before the Division Bench one appeal to the litigant is lost. The right of appeal against judgment of judicial review is a Constitutional right, therefore it goes to the basic feature of the Constitution and same is violation of basic feature which cannot be changed as it happen to be the fundamental feature of the Constitution. ( 56 ) THE judicial review is the basic feature of the Constitution and it cannot be taken away by any other law including the Constitutional Amendment. The remedy of an appeal is a statutory remedy and not a Constitutional remedy. In a given case if no opportunity for appeal is provided from the High Court, aggrieved party has to approach the Supreme Court. Until 1973 all the writ petitions in this Court were heard and disposed of by Division Benches and aggrieved party use to approach the Supreme Court for relief. Therefore, merely on the contention that there is no intra appeal in this Court, it does not mean that the same is violative of basic feature of the Constitution and it amounts to taking away the opportunity of judicial review. ( 57 ) IN view of the circumstances, we use no merits in the writ petitions and accordingly they are dismissed. No order as to costs. Petitions dismissed. --- *** --- .