Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 713 (PAT)

Binod Kumar Jha v. Bihar State Electricity Board

2004-07-20

RAVI S.DHAVAN, SHASHANK KR.SINGH

body2004
Judgment 1. This case has been placed before this Bench in view of the order of the Hon ble Single Judge dated 21.5.2004 in Dr. Binod Kumar Jha vs.The Bihar State Electricity Board and others, CWJC No. 4383 of 2003. 2. The Hon ble Single Judge vide order dated 21.5.2004 in CWJC No. 4383/ 2003 raised a question on the administrative jurisdiction of the Chief Justice placing the aforesaid Writ Jurisdiction case before his Lordship sitting single, whereas the Hon ble Single Judge earlier passed a judicial order for hearing this application alongwith CWJC No. 2290 of 1990 before a Division Bench of this Court. 3. It may be mentioned that in CWJC No. 3986/2003, CWJC No. 2290 of 1990 (Arun Kumar Mukherjee vs. The State of Bihar and others) and other cases attached therewith this division of the Court while consigning the case of Arun Kumar Mukherjee directed as follows: "Arun Kumar Mukherjees case, as was filed and subsequently not meant to be has become a magnum opus and will hereinafter be consigned, except to extent indicated in this order. But, the record in pending matters receiving attention in the context of item no. 1, 2,4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 17 and 28 of the XII Schedule, the proceedings may continue. Arun Kumar Mukherjee came to the Court to complain about the removal of a misplaced lavatory on a road. Since then Arun Kumar Mukherjee has not been heard off. No one has seen him. He came for a limited purpose. Though, a wrongly placed toilet on a public road was a right cause." 4. With the aforesaid direction the Registry of this Court has also been directed to classify whether the matter relating to any aspect on the issues raised in a writ petition arising out of non-performance of statutory duties, civic in nature and municipal in content is one of class action as a public interest litigation, the cause being public and not private be placed before a designated Court, that is to say a Division Bench of two Hon ble Judges. 5. 5. On the grievance of a rate prayer, personal to the rate prayer seeking performance of a statutory duty by a local body may be considered as a writ petition as different from a class action, and this will ordinarily be before a Hon ble Single Judge as opposed to a class action which would be before a two Judge Bench as a PIL 6. The matter before the Hon ble Judge questioning the allocation by the Chief Justice was a personal cause, of a denial of an electricity connection to the peti- lioner. It was not a PIL. The Hon ble Single Judge vide order dated 10.2.2004 in CWJC No. 4383 of 2004 (Dr. Binod Kumar Jha vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board and others) considered it expedient that the application be heard alongwith CWJC No. 2290 of 1990 (Arun Kumar Mukherjees case). 7. The Hon ble Single Judge also directed that the case be laid before the Chief Justice. 8. After the record was placed before the Chief Justice on the administrative side, the Chief Justice, vide minutes dated 28.4.2004 gave the following directions: "CWJC No. 2290 of 1990 came as a PIL. It was a Division Bench matter not connected with any aspect summed up by the Hon ble Court in its order dated 5.12.2003. May the Hon ble Court in jurisdiction be so kind to be seized of this matter and proceed." 9. Thereafter, the Hon ble Single Judge vide order dated 21.5.2004 as stated above, raised a question on the administrative jurisdiction of the Chief Justice in placing the afonsaid writ petition before his Lordship des ite the judicial order as stated above. 10. Perhaps, it has not been brought to the notice of the Hon ble Single Judge that much before Hon ble Single Judge passed the above order, on 11.3.2004, the Arun Kumar Mukherjees case was clarified by the Division Bench to be a class action as a PIL, to the extent indicated in the order dated 11.3.2004. Considering the aspect by implication, the matter was private and not public, since the matter in issue in CWJC No. 4383 of 2003, in which the aforesaid order of reference was passed by the Hon ble Single Judge, related to giving a new electric connection in the house of petitioner as auction purchaser of a duplex flat No. 1-A/8 in Patna. Perhaps, the order dated 11.3.2004 in CWJC No. 2290 of 1990 Arun Kumar Mukherjee vs. The State of Bihar and other, connected cases was not brought to the notice of the Hon ble Single Judge. The Hon ble Single Judge while questioning the administrative jurisdiction of the Chief Justice opined that the issue deserves to be decided by the Division Bench. Hon ble Single Judge was pleased to quote a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of High Court of Judicature at Patna vs. Ramawtar Singh [1993(1) PLJR 644] which runs as follows: "The Chief Justice is entitled to all co-operation from puisne Judges and the puisne Judges are also entitled to all Co-operation from the Chief Justice. The Constitutional provision regarding the Chief Justice does not entitle him to exercise administrative supervision of the judicial work of the puisne Judges or their performance. He is merely the Chief among the equals. The Chief Justice has merely some various administrative powers and duties which the puisne Judges do not have. A judicial work of a puisne Judge can only be judged judicially." "In the case reported in AIR 1962 "" SC 876 it was held that Chief Justice has got inherent jurisdiction to refer a matter to a more larger Bench. However, the Chief Justice has got no jurisdiction to send back any case to a Single Bench or Division Bench when that Bench refers a case by a Judicial order for its adjudication by a Full or Special Bench." 11. In the case reported in AIR 1962 SC 876 it was held that Chief Justice has inherent jurisdiction to refer a matter to a larger Bench. 12. However, the narration thereafter noted in 1993(1) PLJR 644 as referred to in the order of the Hon ble Single Judge is only a part of the decision as reported in 1993(1) PUR referred to above and not a part of decision by the Supreme Court as referred above. 13. It is stated herein that Rules 10, 10A and 11 of the Patna High Court Rules reads as follows: 10. Save as provided by law or by these rules or by an order of the Chief Justice any other case shall be heard by a Bench of two Judges. 10A. 13. It is stated herein that Rules 10, 10A and 11 of the Patna High Court Rules reads as follows: 10. Save as provided by law or by these rules or by an order of the Chief Justice any other case shall be heard by a Bench of two Judges. 10A. Subject to the provisions of these Rules, the Chief Justice shall direct what case or classes of cases shall be placed before each Judge or Bench. 11. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the rules the Chief Justice may direct that any application, petition, suit, appeal or reference shall be heard by a Full Bench. 14. It appears from perusal of Rule 10 that it is the prerogative of the Chief Justice what case or classes or cases shall be placed before each Judge or Bench. 15. The recent law laid down in this case may kindly be perused in AIR 1998 SC 1345 with reference to the case relating to power vested with the Honble the Chief Justice of the High Court in distributing the business of the Court as well as allocation of Benches. It has been unequivocally held that the Chief Justice alone has the right and power to decide how the Benches of the High Court are to be constituted and which cases are required to be heard as well as with which Judges and who shall constitute a Division Bench. 16. With reference to the provisions of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance it has been held in that case that the administrative control of the High Court vests with the Chief Justice of the High Court alone and it is the prerogative of the Chief Jus- tice to distribute business of the High Court both judicial and administrative. It was also held that no Judge or a Bench of Judges can assume jurisdiction in a case pending in the High Court unless it is allotted to them by the Chief Justice. It was held that strict adherence of this procedure is essentia! for maintaining judi- cial 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 casuaity and the Administration ol 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 casuaity and the Administration ol Justice would suffer. No legal system can permit machinery of the Court to collapse. The Supreme Court further held that 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. The Supreme Court observed that 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 niake it essential for such a case to be heard by a larger Bench. 17. With regard to the power of Chief Justice in the matter of allocation of cases as quoted in AIR 2000 SC 1851 the Supreme Court held in a case in which a Division Bench of Madras High Court declined to take action on a petition referred to the Division Bench by Hon ble the Chief Justice in a case of cancellation of bail on the ground that the petition presented before the Chief Justice itself is not maintainable. It was held by the Supreme Court that it is the prerogative of the Chief Justice of the High Court to allocate cases to different Judges of the High Court for disposal. The Hon ble Supreme Court held thai "the Chief Justice is the master of the roster. He alone has the right and the 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 and also as which Judges shall constitute a Division Bench and what work those Benches shall do." 18. In the case State of Maharashtra vs. Narayan Shamrao Puranik, reported in AIR 1982 SC 1198 it is held as fol-lows: "The Chief Justice is the master of the roster. He has full power, authority and jurisdiction in the matter of alloca- tion of business of the High Court which flows not only from the provisions contained in sub-Sec. (3) of S. 51 of the Act, but inheres in him in the very nature of things." 19. He has full power, authority and jurisdiction in the matter of alloca- tion of business of the High Court which flows not only from the provisions contained in sub-Sec. (3) of S. 51 of the Act, but inheres in him in the very nature of things." 19. A Full Bench of the Madras High Court [1991(2) Mad LW 80 Mayawaram Financial Corporation Ltd. vs. Registrar of Chits] held as follows: "The Hon ble the Chief Justice has the inherent power to allocate the jucial business of the High Court incluing who of the Judges should sit alor,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 of 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." 20. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court as reported in AIR 1990 Calcutta 198, also held that the power and jurisdiction to take cognizance of and to hear specified categories of 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 case which is not covered by such determination can be entertained, dealt with or decided by the Judges sitting singly or in Division Courts till such determination remains operative. 21. It may be mentioned that in CWJC No. 2290/1990 (Arun Kumar Mukherjee vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.) the Bench presided over by Hon ble the Chief Justice was pleased to limit the case to the extent of the order dated 11.3.2004 whereas various other cases connected with it were considered administratively for allocation. 21. It may be mentioned that in CWJC No. 2290/1990 (Arun Kumar Mukherjee vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.) the Bench presided over by Hon ble the Chief Justice was pleased to limit the case to the extent of the order dated 11.3.2004 whereas various other cases connected with it were considered administratively for allocation. Thus, before 21.5.2004 the date on which the order was passed by the Hon ble Single Judge in CWJC No. 4383 of 2003, CWJC No. 2290 of 1990 the future course of proceedings were clarified. 22. In view of the above facts, circumstances and the position of law in the matter of Chief Justices prerogative on the matter under relevance, no occasion arises for the Hon ble Single Judge to question the correctness of the order of the Chief Justice referring the case to Hon ble Single Judges Bench. The order of the learned Single Judge, dated 21 May, 2004, with due regard to it, is set aside. 23. Hence let the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for assignment.