JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—I agree with the order dated 17th March 2011 of my senior brother that this case alongwith connected matter need be listed for rehearing but find it expedient to add certain reasons. 2. The record shows that this case alongwith Writ Petition No. 62708 of 2008 was shown in the cause list dated 24.9.2010 in Court No. 34 at item No. 45. It was endorsed as “PH” (part-heard). The order sheet shows that the judgment was reserved on 24.9.2010 by the Bench consisting of one of us (Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J.) and Hon’ble Ram Autar Singh, J. It is informed by the office that on 22.12.2010 information was given by Sri R.K. Singh, Private Secretary to one of us (Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J.) to Joint Registrar (Listing) for notifying both the above writ petitions for delivery of judgment/order in computer list on 23.12.2010 before the Bench comprising of Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. and Hon’ble Ram Autar Singh, J. in Chamber at 1.05 pm with due intimation to learned counsels appearing for the parties. Accordingly the computer list was printed showing the above two writ petitions at item No. 2 for delivery of judgment/order/opinion in Chamber at 1.05 pm. However, the judgment was not delivered but why it so happen there is nothing on record. In fact no order of 23.12.2010 is either on the order sheet or on any other record. 3. Hon’ble Ram Autar Singh, J. retired on 14.1.2011. On the next date, i.e., 15th January 2011 Sri Shailendra Srivastava, Bench Secretary, (Court No. 34) sent a letter alongwith a list of 86 cases. Whom the letter is addressed and what the actual contents are, I am unable to say since I do not have the advantage of perusing the said letter. I find its reference in the memo dated 2nd February 2011 of Joint Registrar (Listing). When I required the Joint Registrar (Listing) to produce the said letter for my perusal, he expressed his inability stating that without permission of Hon’ble the Chief Justice it is not possible. He however told me that after seeking permission he shall make it available for my perusal but having waited for two days, I was not made available the said letter. He however told me that after seeking permission he shall make it available for my perusal but having waited for two days, I was not made available the said letter. Hence, without waiting further I am proceeding to complete my order taking gist of the letter from the language, as is referred to, in memo dated 2nd February 2011 of Joint Registrar (Listing). 4. It says that the Bench Secretary has requested for nomination of Bench presided by one of us (Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J.) for pronouncement of judgment in the cases, list whereof was attached to the said letter which had 86 cases. For proper appreciation the language of the memo dated 2.2.2011 is reproduced as under: “B.S. To Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.C. Verma Kindly refer to your Note dated 15.1.2011 which by I was directed for getting nomination of the referred cases to the bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.C. Verma for pronouncement of judgments.” 5. Thereafter His Lordship, Hon’ble the Chief Justice, passed the following order on 1st February 2011: “Considering the rule, the matters be listed before appropriate Benches.” 6. This order was communicated to the Bench Secretary by Joint Registrar (Listing) vide his memo dated 2nd February 2011 and the listing officials were also directed to observe the said order strictly. 7. One thing I fail to understand. How the Bench Secretary could write such a letter without there being any order of the Court. Besides, when the matter has been heard by a particular Bench, how a different Bench can be constituted for delivery of judgment particularly when the Bench itself has not chosen to deliver the judgment though the case was listed for delivery of judgment. This, I am stressing, in the context of the present case, which was also a part of the list of 86 cases at serial No. 59 and 60 alongwith connected writ petition No. 62708 of 2008. Every Bench Secretary is well aware of the procedure. The question of requesting for nomination of a Bench presided over by only one of the Judge of the Bench which heard the matter, is without authority of the Bench Secretary and is also contrary to Rules. Every Bench Secretary is well aware of the procedure. The question of requesting for nomination of a Bench presided over by only one of the Judge of the Bench which heard the matter, is without authority of the Bench Secretary and is also contrary to Rules. I am also surprised to see, why no explanation was sought from the Bench Secretary on this aspect of the matter and he was left without any further action as it had occasioned a lot of mischief. Normally a Bench Secretary without obtaining any order from the Court, on his own cannot say that the judgment had to be delivered and therefore, nomination should be obtained. This was purely a judicial function and could have been directed only by the Court. In my earnest view, this letter of Bench Secretary amounts to interference in the administration of justice exceeding his authority, hence appropriate action is must and needs be taken. 8. Now resuming to back up proceedings, I find that pursuant to Hon’ble Chief Justice’s order dated 1st February 2011, this case alongwith connected writ petition was listed in Court No. 9 before the Bench consisting of Hon’ble D.R.S. Verma J. and Hon’ble Abhinav Upadhyay J. since the appropriate jurisdiction after 1st February 2011 was with the said Bench. It was shown in the cause list of Court No. 9 dated 25th February 2011 at page No. 50, serial No. 50. 9. However something happened in the meantime, very strange and surprising. Sri Sachindra Misra Advocate moved an application No. 60905 of 2011 dated 24.2.2011 accompanied with an affidavit sworn on 24th February 2011 at 10 A.M., requesting for modification of order dated 31st August 2010 of Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. and Hon’ble R.A. Singh, J. He averred that an order was passed allowing two impleadment applications dated 14th August 2010 and 16th August 2010 but only one was transcribed. However, in paragraph 2 of the affidavit, the learned counsel himself said that later on the application dated 14th August 2010 was allowed on 9th September 2010. If that be so, there was no occasion for any modification. Moreover, the judgment was reserved by the said Bench on 24th September 2010, yet no such request made at that time by the learned counsel. If that be so, there was no occasion for any modification. Moreover, the judgment was reserved by the said Bench on 24th September 2010, yet no such request made at that time by the learned counsel. What prompted him to move this application is a matter to be inquired from him since at no subsequent stage also, the above application has been pressed by him. 10. The aforesaid application was entertained in the Court on the same date i.e. 24th February 2011 meaning thereby it must have been mentioned in the Court and was entertained. The Bench consisting of one of us (Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J.) sitting with Hon’ble S.C. Agarwal, J. passed the following order: “Hon. P.C. Verma, J., Hon’ble S.C. Agarwal, J. As prayed, list on 3.3.2011. “ 11. As per practice, if the application would have been filed in Registry, the same would have been presented in Court on 26.2.2011. Therefore, obviously the application must have been entertained by Court on mention being made by Sri Mishra, Advocate. Thereafter, this application was placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice on the same date and his Lordship passed the following order : “Lay/list before the Division Bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.C. Verma.” 12. The order sheet does not show that on 24.2.2011 this case was listed in Court No. 34 or that even the jurisdiction to entertain application in this matter was in Court No. 34 on that date. The office submitted the following report on the order sheet on 24.2.2011: “Civil Misc. Modification Application No. 60905/11 dated 24.2.11 T.U case is T.U. Hon’ble P.C. Verma J. Hon’ble R.A. Singh J. Hon’ble R.A. Singh, J. has been retired. The case is put up for orders/admission.” 13. On 26th February 2011 Computer Section changed the Court Number Field from 9 to 34 and listed these two writ petitions in Court No. 34 on 3rd March 2011. The case was shown in cause list at page 117, serial No. 9 with endorsement “DF-TU” (date fixed-tied up) under the heading “Orders”. The regular Bench consisted of Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. and Hon’ble S.C. Agarwal, J. but it appears to have been reconstituted since the order on order-sheet of 3.3.2011 is as under: “Hon’ble Prakash Chandra Verma, J. Hon’ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J. As prayed, list/put up this case on 8.3.2011.” 14. The regular Bench consisted of Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. and Hon’ble S.C. Agarwal, J. but it appears to have been reconstituted since the order on order-sheet of 3.3.2011 is as under: “Hon’ble Prakash Chandra Verma, J. Hon’ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J. As prayed, list/put up this case on 8.3.2011.” 14. Thereafter on 8.3.2011 both these writ petitions were listed under the heading “Orders” at page No. 131, serial No. 7 in Court No. 34. The regular Bench shown in cause list was Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. and Hon’ble Jayashree Tiwari, J. but the Bench was reconstituted consisting of Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. and Hon’ble Rajesh Chandra, J. No order signed by the Court on 8.3.2011 is on record. 15. The order sheet on the contrary has a noting of the Bench Secretary himself with the endorsement B.O.C. (By order of Court). It is said to be endorsed on 8th March and reads as unde “8.3.2011 Hon. P.C. Verma, J. Hon. Rajesh Chandra, J. List/put up on 15.3.11. B.O.C. Sd/-” 16. This entry apparently is suspicious and appears to have been made later on as would be evident from the following. 17. I called information from Computer Section and it has been informed that the Bench Secretary fed information at 12.55 pm on 8.3.2011 for changing the status of case to “99”, i.e., “judgment reserved”. The Bench Secretary changed status from Head ‘4’ to Head ‘99’. I am told by the In Charge, Computer Section that Head “4” stands for “date fixed/tied up” whereas ‘99’ stands for “Judgment Reserved”. 18. Once the order is fed in computer that judgment was reserved on 8th March 2011 at 12.55 P.M. how, why and when it was changed on order-sheet is not known. As told by Sri D.K. Dwivedi, In Charge, Computer Section that a Bench Secretary, if has entered some wrong order, he can always rectify the same on the same day but if any change is to be made on the next day or thereafter, permission of, “In charge Computer Section” is needed and the same is recorded by him (Computer In Charge) in a register maintained in Computer Section. No rectification was made by Bench Secretary, since the order recording “judgment reserved” is still available in the computer back up a copy whereof was supplied to me by Section on 17th March 2017. No rectification was made by Bench Secretary, since the order recording “judgment reserved” is still available in the computer back up a copy whereof was supplied to me by Section on 17th March 2017. No subsequent such request is available as informed by Sri D.K. Dwivedi. 19. Since the Bench in Court No. 34 on 8th March 2011 consisted of one of us (Hon’ble P.C.Verma, J.) sitting with Hon’ble Rajesh Chandra J., it means that the status of the case became that of tied up with the said Bench. Unless released, it could not have been taken up by another Bench. 20. On 14th March 2011, the Computer Section was informed by the office that status of the case be changed from ’99" to ‘5’ and then from ‘5’ to ‘4’. The timing fed in the Computer of both these proceedings is 16.37 PM for change in status from “99” to ‘5’ and 16.59 PM for change in status from ‘5’ to ‘4’. 21. The Computer Section, in writing, has informed that from Section they received information (Kacchi Copy) for listing of the case for orders in Court No. 34 with Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. and Hon’ble another Judge as “date fixed-tied up”. Accordingly in computer list dated 15.3.2011 both these cases were shown at item No. 2 under the heading “for orders” in Court No. 34 with regular Bench which was reconstituted on 15.3.2011 with myself. Thereafter record of this matter was sent by showing the case on additional cause list of 15th March 2011 in Court No. 34. 22. I am surprised hereat also. When judgment was already reserved, question of automatic release from concerned Bench and treating it tied up with only one of the Judge constituting Bench, could not have arisen unless the case is released by the Bench concerned or nominated by Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Nothing of the sort had happened. The Computer Section on mere request of office has made all changes. This also requires inquiry as to how Computer information of “judgment reserved” status got changed to this extent without there being any order of Court and without any proper explanation on record. 23. On 15th March 2011, as per the regular cause list, I was to hold Court in Court No. 28 sitting singly. This also requires inquiry as to how Computer information of “judgment reserved” status got changed to this extent without there being any order of Court and without any proper explanation on record. 23. On 15th March 2011, as per the regular cause list, I was to hold Court in Court No. 28 sitting singly. However, Hon’ble Senior Judge reconstituted the Bench and I was required to sit in Court No. 34 with Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. When the matter was taken, all these facts were not available on record and being unaware of all these facts, under the impression that the matter was within the jurisdiction of Court, it was heard and judgment reserved. 24. To my understanding, nomination by Hon’ble Chief Justice on modification application is confined for the purpose of that application and not beyond that. In the circumstances, I am of the view that this matter has to be re-heard but by an appropriate Bench, after nomination by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. 25. Besides, in my view appropriate inquiry is required against the conduct of Sri Shailendra Srivastava, Bench Secretary (Court No. 34) as also the officials in the Registry and Computer Section concerned responsible for frequent change of status of cases. Once order fed in the computer that “judgment was reserved” by the Bench consisting Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. and Hon’ble Rajesh Chandra, J. on 8th March 2011 how the case could be sent in additional cause list on 15th March 2011 in Court No. 34. 26. Let the record be placed before Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate order. —————