ORDER 1. As per the order passed by the three-Judge Bench of this Court dated 19-3-1996 in Civil Appeals Nos. 5178-81 of 19961 this Court directed that the control of investigation by CBI in respect of the criminal cases arising out of the allegations of scams mentioned in the order should be under the overall control and supervision of the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court. 2. Ancillary directions were also made in the same order as to the manner in which such control and supervision could be effected. The said order was passed at the time when the erstwhile Bihar State comprised of the territories which have now gone to Jharkhand State which has come into existence on 15-11-2000. This petition has been moved for the purpose of avoiding confusion and anomaly in the working of the said direction because of the operation of Section 89(1) of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 3. Under Section 89(1) of the said Act: "89. (1) Every proceeding pending immediately before the appointed day before a court (other than the High Court), tribunal, authority or officer in any area which on that day falls within the State of Bihar shall, if it is a proceeding relating exclusively to the territory, which as from that day is the territory of Jharkhand State, stand transferred to the corresponding court, tribunal, authority or officer of that State." 4. It was the stand of CBI that out of 61 cases registered by CBI, so far 52 cases stood transferred under Section 89(1). Mr B.B. Singh, learned counsel appearing for Mr Laloo Prasad Yadav submitted that the said figure is not correct at all. We do not think it necessary to decide that dispute, for Section 89(2) provides a machinery to decide whenever any question arises as to whether any proceeding should stand transferred under sub-section (1) or not. We leave that dispute to be determined in accordance with the said sub-section. 5. This order will apply only to those cases which have stood transferred in exercise of Section 89(1) of the said Act. 6. We make it clear that wherever the words "the High Court of Patna" appear in the order dated 19-3-19961 they would be read as "High Court of Jharkhand" in respect of the cases which stood transferred as per Section 89(1) of the Act. 7. 6. We make it clear that wherever the words "the High Court of Patna" appear in the order dated 19-3-19961 they would be read as "High Court of Jharkhand" in respect of the cases which stood transferred as per Section 89(1) of the Act. 7. Mr Harish Salve, learned Solicitor-General pointed out to us that the Division Bench constituted by the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court consisted of Mr Justice S.N. Jha and Mr Justice S.J. Mukhopadhyay. Out of those two Judges, Mr Justice Mukhopadhyay has been allotted to the High Court of Jharkhand and he has taken charge there. When a new Bench has to be constituted by the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court the availability of Justice Mukhopadhyay in that High Court would be taken into account. We permit CBI to bring this fact to the notice of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Jharkhand. 8. An apprehension is expressed by Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents that cases which have not really been transferred in accordance with Section 89(1) might as well figure in the list as having been transferred. To alleviate the said apprehension, Mr Harish Salve, learned Solicitor General submitted that a list has already been prepared showing the cases which are falling within the ambit of Section 89(1) of the Act and a copy of the said list will be supplied to Mr Chittaranjan Singh, Advocate who is present today. 9. IAs are disposed of.