JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. All the writ petitions pertain to Itanagar Bench of which W.P. (C) No. 5401/2005 has been disposed of on 15.9.2005. However, in view of the orders passed in the connected review petitions, the writ petitions cannot be transferred to Itanagar Bench. The review orders have been passed by another Bench (R.B. Misra, J) inspite of availability of this Bench, which passed the orders carried on review. (Neither I have retired nor expired). 2. The review petitions have been filed against the orders passed in the connected writ petitions i.e., W.P. (C) No. 5416/2005, W.P. (C) No. 5401/2005, W.P. (C) No. 6282/2005 and W.P. (C) No. 5109/2005 transferring the cases to Itanagar Bench since the matters pertain to that Bench. Although the writ petitions were filed at the Principal Seat at a time when there was no Bench available at Itanagar, considering the fact that a Bench was available from the next week, writ petitions were ordered to be transferred to Itanagar Bench. Such a course of action was adopted on the basis of long standing practice of transferring the cases to outlying Benches on the basis of the following two circulars, issued as per the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice: The Gauhati High Court at Guwahati Order Date: 25.11.91 The Hon'ble Chief Justice has been pleased to order that all cases of Shillong pending in the Principal Seat is transferred to that Bench (except those specifically directed to be kept here) Similar cases relating to other Benches (except those specifically directed to be kept here) be transferred to respective Benches. By order Sd/- P.C. Phukan Registrar (Judl.) The Gauahati High Court at Guwahati Order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice Order No. 14 Date 21.4.2001 The Hon'ble Chief Justice is pleased to order that all cases pertaining to Itanagar Bench at Naharlagun, Arunachal Pradesh whether filed at any earlier point of time or to be filed in future at the Principal Seat for absence of Bench at Itanagar, are to be transferred to the Itanagar Bench of the Gauhati High Court at Naharlagun. This order will come into force with immediate effect. By order etc. Sd/-I.A. Ansari Registrar General 3. Even the Registry of the High Court used to transfer the cases to the outlying Benches on the basis of the aforesaid two circulars issued by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. This order will come into force with immediate effect. By order etc. Sd/-I.A. Ansari Registrar General 3. Even the Registry of the High Court used to transfer the cases to the outlying Benches on the basis of the aforesaid two circulars issued by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. During my last sitting at Kohima Bench, the fact of transferring the cases by the High Court Registry itself came to my notice, while dealing with the cases there. In this connection letter No. 7743-44/RM dated 25.4.2005 issued by the Assistant Registrar (I & E) as was directed to her is quoted below: The Gauhati High Court No. 7743-44/RM dt.25,4.05 From: Smt. D. Borah, Asstt. Registrar (I&E) To : The Assistt. Registrar, Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, Kohima, Nagaland. Subject: Transmission of case records in W.A No. 167/04 (Sri Hugie Zeliang and Anr. v. State of Nagaland and Ors.) Reference: Standing order of HCJ dt. 25.11.91 (copy enclosed) Sir. I am enclosing herewith the standing order of the HCJ dated 25.11.91 (copy enclosed), I am directed to send the case records in W.A. 167/04 arisen out of order dt. 6.4.04 passed in W.P. (C) 12 (k)/03 to take necessary steps at your end. Receipt of the case records may be acknowledged at your end. Yours faithfully Asstt. Registrar (I & E) Gauhati High Court 4. Similarly the High Court Registry by its letter No. 16.617-29/RM dated 6.9.99 transferred the cases mentioned therein to Kohima Bench. The letter reads as follows: The Gauhati High Court No. 16,617-29/RM dt. 6.9.99 From: Sri T.N. Das Asstt. Registrar (B) To: The Assistt. Registrar, Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, Kohima, Nagland. Subject: Transmission of case records as per list enclosed herewith. Reference: Sir, I am directed to send herewith the case records alongwith other connected papers as per list enclosed herewith relating to Kohima Bench, Kohima for taking necessary action at your end. The receipt of the case records may please be acknowledged. Enclose : Yours faithfully List of cases Asstt. Registrar (B) Enclosed herewith Gauhati High Court Guwahati. 5. It is the common knowledge of all concerned that not only the Single Bench matter but also the Division Bench matters pertaining to outlying Benches filed at the Principal Seat due to non-availability of the Benches there are being transferred on the basis of the above quoted two circulars issued by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. 6. 5. It is the common knowledge of all concerned that not only the Single Bench matter but also the Division Bench matters pertaining to outlying Benches filed at the Principal Seat due to non-availability of the Benches there are being transferred on the basis of the above quoted two circulars issued by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. 6. On perusal of the review petitions, it appears that the petitioner, purportedly the Registrar (I&E) deliberately suppressed and/or withheld the aforesaid two circulars and contended that no Single Judge and not even the Hon'ble Chief Justice has got the power to transfer the cases to outlying Benches. Such statement coupled with the statements made against the court casting insinuations on the Judge concerned prima facie amounts to criminal contempt of this Court. I am of the considered opinion that all the ingredients of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 are present in this case. 7. It appears that on the basis of such review applications with distorted facts, orders have been passed holding that the cases pertaining to outlying Benches filed at the Principal Seat cannot be transferred. Such findings recorded in the review order is contrary to the aforesaid two circulars issued by the Hon'ble Chief Justice and the long standing practice being followed by all the Hon'ble Judges of this Court. In such a situation I am also of the considered opinion that the orders in the review applications have been passed per in curium. In this connection I may gainfully refer to the decision of the Apex Court as reported in : [2003] 3 SCR 919 (State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer) in which the Apex Court has made elaborate discussions as to in what circumstances a decision can be considered to have been rendered per incurium. 8. The review applications were purportedly filed by the Registrar (I&E). It appears that after the judicial orders were passed for transferring the cases to Itanagar Bench, the Registrar General had put up a note before the Hon'ble Chief Justice seeking his permission to transfer the cases to Itanagar Bench. 8. The review applications were purportedly filed by the Registrar (I&E). It appears that after the judicial orders were passed for transferring the cases to Itanagar Bench, the Registrar General had put up a note before the Hon'ble Chief Justice seeking his permission to transfer the cases to Itanagar Bench. It is not understood as to why such a course of action was adopted after the judicial orders were passed by this Court transferring the cases to Itanagar Bench and when no such course of action was adopted in all earlier cases of such orders passed by other Hon'ble Judges including the Division Bench transferring cases to outlying Benches. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that both the Registrar General and the Registrar (I&E) involved in the review episode with the kind of statements made in the review applications casting insinuations on this Court are liable for contempt of court proceeding. 9. When the matter relating to review episode was brought to my notice, while I was sitting at Itanagar Bench, I addressed a letter to the Registrar (I&E) seeking his clarification in the matter and for a reply. The letter addressed to him reads as under: Registrar (I&E) It has been brought to my notice that you have filed four review petitions in respect of four orders passed by me in the Principal Seat in four different writ petitions pertaining to Itanagar Bench casting insinuation on me. The grounds assigned in the review petitions are contrary to the established procedure and the prevalent practice of transferring the cases to outlying Benches being followed by all other Judges. In this regard, you have deliberately withheld the standing order of the then Chief Justice. Let me know the materials on the basis of which the averments have been made in the review petitions which on the face of it are full of distortion of facts and reality. If a Judge and even the Chief Justice cannot transfer the cases to outlying Benches, does it mean that the cases pertaining to outlying Benches filed in the Principal Seat, can never be transferred. When the cases were transferred on earlier occasions and are being transferred by all the Judges, why no such review petitions were filed. It appears that you are interested for retention of the four cases at Principal Seat with an oblique motive. When the cases were transferred on earlier occasions and are being transferred by all the Judges, why no such review petitions were filed. It appears that you are interested for retention of the four cases at Principal Seat with an oblique motive. The way in which the matter has been dealt with and projected with distortion of facts, owes an explanation from you. If you have done the same as per the dictation of someone else by obliging him mortgaging your conscience, disclose the same. Volumes can be said. Records cannot speak lie. It givens me an impression that the entire episode is a deliberate creation with a purpose behind and to suit the situation. Furnish your explanation with materials on the basis of which you filed the review petitions making derogatory remarks even to the extent of attributing motive. As to what should be my future course of action for unnecessary dragging me to a non-existent issue, including the action in the judicial side, same shall be decided in due course on receipt of your explanation with materials. Furnish your reply immediately. B.K. Sharma Judge. To my aforesaid letter no reply has been furnished till date. 10. During my last visit to Itanagar Bench, it was brought to my notice that the counsel who filed the review applications certifying the grounds urged therein to be good grounds for review, themselves were responsible for transfer of cases to Itanagar Bench. In this connection mention may be made of W.P. (C) No. 132 (A.P)/2003 (corresponding Civil Rule No. 2320/99) and W.P. (C) No. 87 (A.P.)/2003. In both the cases Mr. G.N. Sahewalla and Mr. D. Senapati who are the counsel for the review petitioners were party to the orders passed by this Court transferring the said two writ petitions to Itanagar Bench. In such a situation, it is not understood as to how the grounds of review could be certified to be the good grounds of review. 11. The grounds urged are that the orders of transfer of cases were passed without any jurisdiction vested on the court and that the court, by transferring the cases to Itanagar Bench formed its own roster. Another ground urged in the review applications is that no Single Judge including Hon'ble Chief Justice has got power to transfer cases from Principal Seat to outlying Benches. Another ground urged in the review applications is that no Single Judge including Hon'ble Chief Justice has got power to transfer cases from Principal Seat to outlying Benches. Such statements are contrary to the above quoted two circulars, which are public documents and thus are known to them. 12. In view of the above, I am also of the considered opinion that the aforesaid two counsel are also liable for contempt of court proceedings. 13. In view of the above position, I am of the considered opinion that the matter pertaining to review is required to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for his consideration to place the matter before a Division Bench having regard to the importance and complexity of the case. This course of action adopted by me is having regard to the provisions of Rule 2 of Chapter VA of the Gauhati High Court Rules. I also deem it fit and proper to refer the matter pertaining to criminal contempt of this Court to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for placing the matter before a Division Bench. 14. Let the matter be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for his Lordship's consideration to place the matter pertaining to review before a Division Bench so as to resolve the issue, on the face the apparent conflict between the aforesaid two circulars and the long standing practice being followed by this Court and the orders passed on review. A reference is also made to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for his Lordship's consideration to place the matter before a Division Bench for drawing up criminal contempt of Court proceeding against the persons who are found to be responsible for such a state of affair. 15. Let this order be brought to the notice of the Deputy Registrar (J) for his necessary follow up action. W.P. (C) NO. 5416/2005 16. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 17. Mr. B. Bannerjee, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, the grievance raised in this writ petition has been redressed by way of retaining the petitioner at his original place of posting. He submits that to that effect the impugned transfer order has been kept in abeyance. Mr. 17. Mr. B. Bannerjee, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, the grievance raised in this writ petition has been redressed by way of retaining the petitioner at his original place of posting. He submits that to that effect the impugned transfer order has been kept in abeyance. Mr. D. Das, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that in view of the order passed by the official respondents, the interest of his client shall be affected. If that be so, it will be open for the respondent No. 4 to pursue such legal remedy as may be available to him. Mr. R.P. Sarma, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance stated to be redressed by the official respondents may not be correct in view of the fact that the impugned order of transfer has only been kept in abeyance. It will be open for the petitioner to approach this Court, in case of any adverse order is passed in future. Writ petition stands disposed of.