ASHISH N. TRIVEDI, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER, an Upper Division Assistant posted at Lucknow Bench of this Court, was placed under suspension on account of certain omissions and commissions amounting to grave misconduct and disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner. ( 2 ) VARIOUS orders from time to time passed by the Honble the Chief Justice were challenged by the petitioner in following nine writ petitions and the Special Appeal. Description of the writ petitions and the special appeal is being given hereunder ; (1) Writ Petition No. 545 (S/s) of 2000, Rakesh Verma v. Honble Chief Justice and Ors. , tied up with Honble Justice Pradeep Kant. (2) Writ Petition No. 7574 (S/s) of 2000 and Writ Petition No. 7361 (S/s) of 2000 connected writ Petition. (3) Writ Petition No. 525 (S/s) of 2001, (4) Writ Petition No. 1648 (S/s) of 2001. (5) Writ Petition No. 1649 (S/s) of 2001. (6) Writ Petition No. 1870 (S/s) of 2001. Part heard : Honble Justice J. Bhalla. (7) Writ Petition No. 2479 (S/s) of 2001. (8) Writ Petition No. 2480 (S/s) of 2001. (9) Special Appeal No. 173 of 2001. ( 3 ) IT appears that an application was moved by the Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents in the writ petition and was presented before the Honble the Chief Justice for consolidating all the writ petitions for being heard together by a Bench. ( 4 ) THE registry endorsed the application to Sri D. N. Agarwal. Joint Registrar (Listing ). Allahabad and the same was placed before Honble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. The honble the Chief Justice considering the facts and circumstances of the cases directed that all nine writ petitions to be listed together before Honble D. K. Trivedi. J. ( 5 ) WRIT Petition No, 3323 (SS) of 2001 was filed by the petitioner praying that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the illegal directions of respondent Nos. 5 and 6, namely, joint Registrar, Listing, High Court, Lucknow and Sri Pradeep Kumar, Joint Registrar Listing, high Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in reference to endorsements made by the Honble the chief Justice on the application of the Chief Standing Counsel dated 22. 5. 2001 and further directions not to send the files to any Officer without judicial order of the Court and certain other reliefs. 5. 2001 and further directions not to send the files to any Officer without judicial order of the Court and certain other reliefs. ( 6 ) ON 13,7. 2001. Honble Pradeep Kant, J. , passed the following orders while dismissing the Writ petition No. 3323 (S/s) of 2001 : "learned counsel for the State Sri Ashok Srlvastava has placed before the Court an order of honble the Chief Justice indicating that all the writ petitions of the petitioner have been ordered to be placed before Honble D. K. Trivedi, J. , who has been nominated for the purpose. The date shall be fixed before the Honble Judge as per convenience. No further relief can be granted in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. It will however be open to the petitioner to approach the Honble the Senior Judge or the Honble Judge concerned for getting the date fixed in the case. " it does not appear that this order dated 13. 7. 2001 has been questioned in special appeal. ( 7 ) PETITIONER filed another Writ Petition No. 3563/ss of 2001 claiming the following reliefs : (a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the illegal impugned order dated 6. 7. 2001 by which the part-heard and tied-up cases were assigned to be heard by the newly nominated Honble Justice to avoid impediment in speedy disposal of the petition. (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the whole illegal impugned order dated 6. 7. 2001 of opposite party No. 1 directing the opposite parties not to list the petitions before the newly assigned Honble Justice. (c) issue a writ, order or direction commanding the opposite parties to list the petitions for hearing before the appropriate single service Bench existing at present ignoring the order dated 6. 7. 2001 passed by opposite party No. 1. (d) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no. (c) issue a writ, order or direction commanding the opposite parties to list the petitions for hearing before the appropriate single service Bench existing at present ignoring the order dated 6. 7. 2001 passed by opposite party No. 1. (d) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no. 1 in case other Bench is essential to be assigned for hearing all the petitions and in that case the opposite party No. 1 may consider and pass the order in preference as mentioned in this petition that in the first place all petitions be heard by the Honble the Chief Justice himself and in second and third place all petitions be heard either by Honble Justice Sri Markandey Katju or by Honble Justice Pradeep Kant respectively. (e) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding opposite party No. 1 that in awarding the opportunity of the implemen tation of legal and civil right of speedy disposal of the petition an order also be passed to the proposed Bench for hearing that all petitions be heard regularly and be decided within a stipulated period and date as all the petitions involve most of the benefits of service matters from which petitioner is deprived of since a long period which has caused mental agony to the petitioner as well as to his family members. (f) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding opposite parties No. 2 to 8 to pay compensation for causing mental torture and agony for creating impediment in the legal and civil right of speedy disposal of petitions to the extent of rupees one lac as punishment in principle envisaged by the Honble Supreme Court fn State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radha krishnan jointly and collectively to the petitioner. (g) issue a direction or order to initiate contempt proceeding against opposite party Nos. 2 to 8 who committed contempt of Honble Court orders by not complying the orders contained in the petition in listing them in first week and second week of July, 2001 in which all were due to be listed. (h) issue a writ, order or direction to which the Honble Court may deem Just and proper in the interest of justice and allow the petition with cost. (h) issue a writ, order or direction to which the Honble Court may deem Just and proper in the interest of justice and allow the petition with cost. " the writ petition came up for orders as regard admission before Honble D. K. Trivedt, J. who was assigned all the writ petitions filed by the petitioner. ( 8 ) AFTER hearing counsel for the petitioner, learned single Judge placing reliance on the Apex courts decision in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chandra and Ors. , 1998 (1) SCC 1, held that the Honble the Chief Justice has full power to consolidate cases and also nominate Bench including part-heard cases pending before another Bench. ( 9 ) PETITIONER seeks review of the judgment and order dated 1. 8. 2001 passed by Honble D. K. Trivedi. J. In Writ Petition Wo. 3563/ss of 1991. ( 10 ) HAVING examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the material on record, I find no merit in the review application. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions placed reliance on rules of the Court, namely Rules 1 and 14 of Chapter V, Rule 7 of Chapter VI and Rule 26 of Chapter viii, which are being reproduced hereunder : chapter V, Rule 1 : "constitution of Benches.-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 inaccordance with his directions. Rule 14 : Tied up cases.-- (1) A case partly heard by a Bench shall ordinarily be laid before the same Bench for disposal. A case in which a Bench has merely directed notice to issue to the opposite party or passed an ex parte order shall not be deemed to be a case partly heard by such bench. (2) When a criminal revision has been admitted on the question of severity of sentence only, it shall ordinarily be heard by the Bench admitting it. Chapter VI. Rule 7 : 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 taken up first after miscellaneous cases, if any, in the Cause List for the day on which such Judge or Judges next sit. Chapter VI. Rule 7 : 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 taken up first after miscellaneous cases, if any, in the Cause List for the day on which such Judge or Judges next sit. Every part-heard case entered in the list may, unless the Bench orders otherwise, be proceeded with whether 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. Chapter VIII, Rule 26 : Connecting cases.--No application shall be required for connecting cases arising out of the same decree, judgment or orders and such cases shall be connected whether there be any application or not. When any other cases are sought to be connected, a properly stamped application shall be presented to the Registrar after giving notice to the advocates for all the other parties to such cases. The signature of an advocate on such application shall be sufficient to indicate that notice has been given to him. Any party desiring to contest the application may file an objection within ten days. Where no objection has been filed, the Registrar may pass orders on the application. Where an objection has been filed, the application shall be listed before the Court for orders. " ( 12 ) A bare perusal of Rule 1 of Chapter V establishes that it expressly and unambiguously empowers the Chief Justice to constitute Benches of single Judge and Division Courts from time to time and assign such works to the Bench as Honble the Chief Justice may order or in accordance with his directions. Rule 1 of Chapter V is a omnibus provision vesting administrative control over the High Court and the determination of Judges jurisdiction to hear and decide cases so assigned. ( 13 ) RULE 14 of Chapter V provides that ordinarily, i. e. , to say, invariably and not necessarily the case part-heard by a Bench is to be laid before the same Bench for disposal. ( 13 ) RULE 14 of Chapter V provides that ordinarily, i. e. , to say, invariably and not necessarily the case part-heard by a Bench is to be laid before the same Bench for disposal. There may be circumstances, situations and the facts necessitating the part heard case to be heard by another bench and the Honble the Chief Justice is fully empowered to so direct. ( 14 ) RULE 1 read with Rule 14 of Chapter V leads to an irresistible conclusion that the Honble the chief Justice may in his discretion assign any part-heard case of a Bench to another Bench for hearing afresh and no exception can be taken as Rules of the High Court have been framed under article 225 of the Constitution and the Rules are not the subject-matter of challenge in these proceedings. ( 15 ) RULE 7 of Chapter VI deals with part-heard cases and provides that part-heard case, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, shall be taken up in the Cause List for the day when Judge or judges next sit. Proviso to Rule 7 provides that if part-heard case cannot be heard by the Bench for more than two months on account of absence of any Judge or Judges constituting the Bench, the Chief Justice may order such part-heard case to be listed before another Bench for fresh hearing. This power is subject to over all control and administrative powers vested in the Chief justice under Rule 1 of Chapter V of the Rules of the Court and, therefore, the Chief Justice has the power to transfer a part-heard case from one Bench to another Bench even before expiry of two months. ( 16 ) RULE 26 of Chapter VIII envisages connecting of cases arising out of the same decree, judgment or orders whether there be an application or not for the said purpose and when other cases sought are to be connected, a stamped application is to be given to the Registrar after giving notice to the counsel for all such parties to such cases and if any party is desirous of filing objections, it can do so in ten days and if no objection has been filed the Registrar may pass order or else the application and the objections may be placed before the Court for orders. ( 17 ) A perusal of Rule 1 of Chapter V and Rule 26 of Chapter VIII would indicate that they operate in distinct and different fields. The powers of the Chief Justice under Rule 1 of Chapter v is an administrative power and so is the power exercised by the Registrar under Rule 26 of chapter VIII but when objections are filed for connecting of cases, it is the judicial discretion of the Court to pass appropriate orders considering the objections of other side. Rule 26 of Chapter viii does not in any manner circumscribe, vary or override the purpose, contents and the provisions of Rule 1 of Chapter V of the Court. ( 18 ) SIMILAR controversy had arisen in this Court, which was settled by a Full Bench in Sanjay kumar v. Acting Chief Justice, 1996 AWC 644, which was quoted with approval by Their lordships in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand, (supra ). The Bench speaking through Honble s. Saghir Ahmad, J. , (as His Lordship then was) observed : "rule 14 of Chapter V of the Rules of Court provides as under : rule 14.-- (1) A case partly heard by a Bench shall ordinarily be laid before the same Bench for disposal. A case in which a Bench has merely directed notice to issue to the opposite party or passed an ex parte order shall not be deemed to be a case partly heard by such Bench. (2) When a criminal revision has been admitted on the question of severity of sentence only, it shall ordinarily be heard by the Bench admitting it. " the provision of Sub-rule (1) would indicate that even a case which is partly heard by a division Bench is not necessarily to be laid before that Bench. The use of word "ordinarily" itself indicates that there can be a departure from the normal practice of listing a part-heard case before the same Bench. The word "ordinarily" means in a large majority of cases but not "invariably". The word "ordinarily" is utilized to indicate that although in normal course a thing will be done in a particular manner, in special circumstances a departure from normal course of action is permissible under law. The word "ordinarily" means in a large majority of cases but not "invariably". The word "ordinarily" is utilized to indicate that although in normal course a thing will be done in a particular manner, in special circumstances a departure from normal course of action is permissible under law. Normally, therefore, a case which has been partly-heard by a Bench shall be laid before that Bench but in special circumstances, the Chief Justice who, as pointed out above, has exclusive jurisdiction of distributing work to Judges, can depart from the normal course and list the case before some other Judge. This would be permissible where the Judges or one of them constituting the Bench are not available. There may be variety of reasons for the non-availability of those Judges. In that situation, particularly in the interest of immediate decision of the case, the Chief Justice can list the case before any other Bench for hearing and disposal. " his Lordship thereafter further observed : "the other part of Sub-rule (1) lays down in clear terms that the case in which the Bench has merely issued notice to the opposite party or had passed an ex parte order shall not be deemed to be a case partly-heard by that Bench. This provision has been made to specify that a case does not become part-heard merely by passing of interim order. It also lays down that if notices are directed to be issued to the opposite party, the case does not become part-heard case of that bench. The consequences are obvious. If the Division Bench which has merely passed an ex parte order or directed notice to be issued to the opposite party locates it as a "part-heard" or as "tied-up" case, the order would be in violation of the rules of Court and, therefore, a nullity. Such an order would be without Jurisdiction and would not confer any jurisdiction on the Bench concerned to proceed with that case unless the case is listed before them again under the orders of the Chief Justice. Such an order would be without Jurisdiction and would not confer any jurisdiction on the Bench concerned to proceed with that case unless the case is listed before them again under the orders of the Chief Justice. In a situation where any order has been passed indicating such a case on the order-sheet or on the main writ petition to be a part-heard or tied-up case, the Chief Justice, inspite of that order, would retain his jurisdiction to list it before the appropriate Bench for hearing as the order limiting the case to be a part-heard or tied-up would be in violation of the rules of Court and would not bind the hands of the Chief Justice from listing that case as a "seen" case before any other Bench rather than as a "tied-up" case before that very Bench. His Lordship while discussing the powers of the Chief Justice in Sanjay Kumar v. Acting Chief justice, (supra), observed : "in view of the above, it is clear that the Chief Justice enjoys a special status not only under the constitution but also under Rules of Court, 1952 made in exercise of powers conferred by article 225 of the Constitution. The Chief Justice alone can determine jurisdiction of various judges of the Court. He alone can assign work to a Judge sitting alone and to the Judges sitting in Division Bench or to Judges sitting in Full Bench. He alone has the Jurisdiction to decide which case will be heard by a Judge sitting alone or which case will be heard by two or more judges. The conferment of this power exclusively on the Chief Justice is necessary so that various courts comprising of the Judges sitting alone or in Division Bench etc. work in a coordinate manner and the jurisdiction of one Court is not overlapped by other Court. If the Judge were free to choose their jurisdiction or any choice was given to them to do whatever case they may like to hear and decide, the machinery of the Court would collapse and the Judicial functioning of the Court would cease by generation of internal strife on account of hankering for a particular jurisdiction or a particular case. If the Judge were free to choose their jurisdiction or any choice was given to them to do whatever case they may like to hear and decide, the machinery of the Court would collapse and the Judicial functioning of the Court would cease by generation of internal strife on account of hankering for a particular jurisdiction or a particular case. The nucleus for proper functioning of the Court is the self and judicial discipline of Judges and the Chief Justice has full authority and power to distribute work to the judges and to regulate their jurisdiction and sittings. " his Lordship while dealing with Chapter V of the Rules of Court observed that : "it is a matter of internal administration of listing of a case and distribution of work to different judges of the Court. The arguments of the learned counsel that the application of the Chief standing Counsel was not maintainable on the ground that there was no provision under Rule 6 for constitution of a special Bench on an application of a party to the proceedings is also to be rejected as fallacious. Under Rule 6 Chapter V of the Rules of Court, it can well be brought to the notice of the Chief justice through an application or even otherwise that there was a case which is required to be heard by a larger Bench on account of an important question of law being involved in the case or because of the conflicting decisions on the point in issue in that case. If the Chief Justice takes cognizance of an application laid before him under Rule 6 of Chapter V of the Rules of Court and constitutes a Bench of two or more Judges to decide the case, he cannot be said to have acted in violation of any statutory provision. The application of the Chief Standing Counsel was, therefore, clearly maintainable under chapter V. Rule 6 of the Rules of Court. " ( 19 ) IN view of the above discussions, it is abundantly clear that the order of Honble the Chief justice assigning these writ petitions to be heard by Honble D. K. Trivedi, J. , (as His Lordship then was) is perfectly valid and does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. ( 20 ) MOREOVER, by the present review application, the petitioner wants rehearing of the writ petition, which is not permissible. ( 20 ) MOREOVER, by the present review application, the petitioner wants rehearing of the writ petition, which is not permissible. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length. It may be pointed out that there is no whisper in the writ petition or review application that copy of the application dated 25. 5. 2001 moved by the Chief Standing Counsel was not served upon the counsel for the petitioner or that he was not aware of the contents of the application. Petitioner himself has filed a copy of the application moved by the Chief Sanding counsel with the review application as also with the writ petition. ( 21 ) THE order passed by the Honble the Chief Justice that all the nine writ petitions filed by the petitioner be heard and decided by one of the Honble Judges does not entail any civil consequences nor tends to cause any injury or prejudice to the petitioner so as to attract the principles of natural justice. ( 22 ) IN any event, it is within the absolute power of the Honble the Chief Justice to assign any case pending in the Court to any Bench and the petitioner has no say in the matter and cannot object to the orders passed by the Honble the Chief Justice in this behalf. ( 23 ) IN the result, the review application lacks merit and is accordingly rejected. ( 24 ) NO order as to costs.