Sanjay Misra,J. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has moved both the recall applications. A special mention has been made before this Court by counsel for the CBI on grounds of exceptional urgency and we have called for the recall applications from the office. 2. On 5 December 2013, bail was granted by Hon'ble Jayashree Tiwari, J to the two accused, namely Ram Prasad Jaiswal and Dinesh Kumar Singh. On 11 December 2013, a correction application was served in the office of counsel for the CBI on behalf of Ram Prasad Jaiswal stating that the correction application would be taken up on 12 December 2013. The grievance of the CBI is that on 11 December 2013, no intimation was given to the effect that the correction application would be taken up out of turn and before 12 December 2013. It has been stated that on 11 December 2013, a counter affidavit was prepared by counsel for the CBI and was served on the counsel for the accused (Ram Prasad Jaiswal) on 12 December 2013. At this stage also counsel was not informed that the correction application had already been disposed of. Admittedly, as has now been stated by the learned counsel for Dinesh Kumar Singh, the correction application filed on behalf of Dinesh Kumar Singh was not ever served on counsel for the CBI. 3. On 12 December 2013, which was the last working day, in office, of Hon'ble Jayashree Tiwari, J before the Judge was to demit office on retirement, no assignment of judicial work was entrusted to the learned Judge. It has been stated in the recall application that an affidavit along with an uncertified copy of the order obtained from the internet was filed before the concerned Special Judge, CBI at Ghaziabad stating that an order has been passed on the correction application and, hence, release order may be passed. It has been stated by the CBI that even when the counsel went to the chamber of the learned Judge to make a mention that in case the correction application was to be taken up, he may be informed in order to oppose the application, the learned counsel was informed by the Secretary to the Judge that the Judge is not going to pass any order on 12 December 2013. Prima facie, on the basis of the material, which has been disclosed before this Court, at the present stage, it is clear that the order dated 11 December 2013 has been passed without notice to CBI. 4. In the case of Ram Prasad Jaiswal, the correction application had been served on 11 December 2013 with a specific endorsement that the application would be taken up on 12 December 2013. However, it appears that an order was passed on 11 December 2013 itself disposing of the correction application. In the case of D.K. Singh, it is now admitted that even the correction application was not served. Prima facie, at this stage, it is clear that the manner in which the correction applications have been allowed, is irregular. Prima facie, it appears at this stage that the due course of justice and the due process of law have been subverted by the accused. 5. In R. Rathinam Vs. State By DSP, District Crime Branch, Madurai District, Madurai & Anr., (2000) 2 SCC 391 , the Supreme Court has considered the law on the subject, particularly having regard to the provisions of Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Supreme Court has held that the exercise of power under Section 439 (2) by the High Court to direct that any person, who has been released on bail, be arrested and committed to custody is not barred on the premise that the bail was granted by a court on a judicial consideration. In that case, the Supreme Court observed that there is no barrier either in Section 439 or in any other law which inhibits even a member of the public from moving the High Court to exercise such power suo motu. Moreover, it has been held in the judgment of the Supreme Court that all matters which can be heard and decided by a Single Judge can, as well, be heard by a Division Bench, the assignment being the prerogative of the Chief Justice. 6. In the present case, the material which has been placed for consideration of the Court specially in regard to the manner of exercise of power by the learned Judge would warrant that the recall applications should be heard by a Division Bench. 6. In the present case, the material which has been placed for consideration of the Court specially in regard to the manner of exercise of power by the learned Judge would warrant that the recall applications should be heard by a Division Bench. The Court has been informed that the Special Judge, CBI at Ghaziabad is likely to release the accused at 1.00 pm on bail unless an order is passed in the meantime. 7. Considering the urgency of the matter, we pass the following order:- (i) The operation of orders dated 11 December 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Criminal Misc. Correction Application No. 365038 of 2013 and in Criminal Misc. Correction Application No. 363101 of 2013 shall remain stayed pending the disposal of the recall applications and the Special Judge, CBI at Ghaziabad presided over by Dr. A.K. Singh is directed not to give effect to these orders dated 11 December 2013 passed by the Court in the above referred correction applications filed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 4314 of 2013 and 8237 of 2013; and (ii) In view of the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in R. Rathinam (supra), the further hearing of the recall applications shall now be placed before a Division Bench of this Court to be presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amar Saran. 8. The Registrar General is directed to immediately communicate a copy of this order by fax to the learned Special Judge, CBI at Ghaziabad presided over by Dr. A.K. Singh. Since the transcription of present order would take some time, telephonic instructions may also be issued. 9. The proceedings shall now appear before the Bench presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amar Saran on 16 December 2013. __________________