Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 471 (GAU)

State of Manipur v. L. Shyamsunder

2002-12-03

P.G.AGARWAL, P.P.NAOLEKAR

body2002
P.P. NAOLEKAR, CJ.— Writ Appeal No. 587/02(G) (WA 2657 2002 Imp) and other 93 analogous appeals arising out of the writ petitions filed and decided by the learned Single Judge at Imphal Bench on 25.9.2002. On 15.11.2002 the learned Single Judge has passed the following order: "15.11.02. Heard Mr H.N.K. Singh, learned A.G. Manipur, along with Mr JakI, learned G.A. Put up these cases along with other analogous cases before the Hon'ble CJ for hearing before the Principal Bench at Gauhati as there is no Division Bench available at Imphal at present. Learned GA is allowed to cany the case records to the Principal Bench." 2. It appears that the order has been passed by the learned Single Judge transferring the cases from Imphal Bench to Principal Seat at Guwahati on a request made by the learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Manipur. As. a result of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 15.11.02 records of the cases have been transmitted from Imphal Bench to the Principal Seat at Guwahati and the cases have been listed before us. The direct effect of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 15.11.2002 is not only to constitute a Bench to hear the appeals, which have arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of the Imphal Bench, at the Principal Seat, but also of transferring the cases from Imphal Bench to the Principal Seat at Guwahati. 3. In State of Rajasthan-Vs-Prakash Chand and others, reported in (1998)1 SCC1, the Apex Court had an occasion to consider the question of powers of the Chief Justice on the administrative side to constitute a Bench and listing of the cases before the Bench and the powers of Puisne Judge in the matter of listing of the case The Apex Court in the said matter held thus: "While on the judicial side the Chief Justice of the High Court is only the first amongst the equals, the administrative control of the High Court vests in the Chief Justice of the High Court alone and it is his prerogative to distribute business of the High Court both judicial and administrative. The Chief Justice is the master of the roster. The Chief Justice is the master of the roster. He alone has the right and power to decide how the Benches of 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 which Judges shall constitute a Division Bench and what work those Benches shall do. The Puisne Judges can only do that work which is allotted to diem by the Clhief Justice or under his directions. 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 mis procedure is essential for maintaining judicial discipline and proper functioning of the High Court. No departure from it can be permitted. In the event a Single Judge or a Division Bench considers mat a particuTaf'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 orders. This is essential for smooth functioning of the High Court. The Puisne Judges cannot "pick and choose" any case pending in the High Court and assign the same to himself or themselves for disposal without appropriate orders of the Chief Justice. No Judge or Judges can give directions to the Registry for listing any case before him or them which runs counter to the directions given by the Chief Justice." 4. As per the dictum laid down by the Apex Court it is the prerogative of the Chief Justice to fix the roster and distribute business of the High Court. The Puisne Judge cannot "pick and choose" cases pending in the High Court and assign them for disposal by some other Judge or by himself. No Puisne Judge has power to give direction to the Registry for listing of the case which runs counter to the directions given by the Chief Justice. The Puisne Judge cannot "pick and choose" cases pending in the High Court and assign them for disposal by some other Judge or by himself. No Puisne Judge has power to give direction to the Registry for listing of the case which runs counter to the directions given by the Chief Justice. In the instant case, there was no direction issued by the Chief Justice for listing of these matters before the Single Bench at Lnphal Bench. 5. The power of Single Judge to entertain a writ appeal and pass interlocutory order when a Division Bench is not available in the station was considered by the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of M. Romen Singh-Vs-Daulousiiru and others, reported in 1999(1) GLT232 (FB): (1999)2 GLR 213. The Fill Bench of this Court has specifically laid down that the legality and validity of an order of the Single Judge can be looked at only by the Division Bench and it cannot be scrutinised by another Single Judge and a Single Judge has no power to pass even an interlocutory order in such matters, as that .power has been specifically reserved for the Division Bench, In view of the Full Bench judgment the learned Single Judge had no authority to pass the order even interlocutory in nature, transferring the cases from Imphal Bench to the Principal Seat on the ground that Division Bench is not available at Imphal. 6. There is another aspect also. The learned Single Judge while passing the order has exercised the powers of *he Chief Justice by transferring the cases from Imphal Bench to the Principal Seat at Guwahati of which he has no jurisdiction at all. 7. Under the Gauhati High Court (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Imphal Order 1992, the matters arising out of in the State of Manipur shall be heard at the Permanent Bench of the Gauhati High Court at Imphal. The Chief Justice of the High Court may, in his discretion, order that any case or class of cases arising in the State of Manipur shall be heard at the Principal Seat at Guwahati. Thus, in his discretion, the matter arising in the State of Manipur can be transferred from the Permanent Bench at Imphal to the Principal Seat at Guwahati, only, by the Chief Justice. 8. Thus, in his discretion, the matter arising in the State of Manipur can be transferred from the Permanent Bench at Imphal to the Principal Seat at Guwahati, only, by the Chief Justice. 8. The discretion exercisable by the Chief Justice only, for transferring of matters from the Outlying Benches to the Principal Seat, cannot be exercised by any other Judge. So long there is no order of transfer by the Chief Justice in his discretion, the matters arising in the State of Manipur has to be heard at the Permanent Bench of the Gauhati High Court at Imphal and no Judge has authority to pass order for transfer of cases from that Bench to the Principal Seat. The order passed by the learned Single Judge on 15.11.2002 has an effect of transferring the cases from the Permanent Bench at Imphal to the Principal Seat at Guwahati in exercise of the powers which are exclusively vested in the Chief Justice. The order passed by the learned Single Judge on 15.11.2002 is without jurisdiction and authority and, therefore, is quashed. 9. The Registry is directed to send back the matters immediately to the Imphal Bench The matters shall be listed before the Bench as may be directed by the Chief Justice. 10. We, however, make it clear that the parties are at liberty to move appropriate application before the Chief Justice for necessary orders hi that regard.