JUDGEMNT : MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. 1. All these five suo motu References were heard analogously as the subject-matters of these References are almost similar. 2. The facts giving rise to these References may be summed up thus:- CIVIL REFERENCE No. 1 OF 2009: Upon a First Appeal being No.1241 of 1997* having been listed before a Division Bench (Coram: B.J. Shethna and M.C. Patel, JJ), on 4th April 2005, the Court was pleased to observe as follows:- “There is a sick note of Mr Japi for the respondent. No note for fixing early date of hearing can be entertained. Learned advocate has to file proper Civil Application for fixing early date of hearing by making out Special case in it. Hence, no order on this note. Before parting, we must state that proper course for fixing early date of hearing is to file proper civil application making out a special case in it. Henceforth, the Office shall not entertain any such note and insist for civil application for fixing early date of hearing.” Therefore, the Registry placed the order before the then Chief Justice and the learned Chief Justice was pleased to give direction to issue Circular to the Judicial Branches directing not to entertain any such note for fixing early date of hearing and to insist on filing Civil Application for fixing the early date of hearing. However, as the learned advocates of this Court were accustomed to the filing of the notes for fixing the early date of hearing and they were insisting on the circulation of the same before the Court for orders thereon, the Registry was faced with a difficult situation as to whether such notes for fixing early date of hearing should be entertained or the advocate should be asked to file a separate application for fixing early date of hearing. Therefore, the matter was placed before the then Chief Justice. The learned Chief Justice passed an order to refer this matter before the Full Bench to resolve the issue and give appropriate directions and guidance in the matter for the future administration of justice in the High Court of Gujarat. Hence this Reference. CIVIL REFERENCE NO. Therefore, the matter was placed before the then Chief Justice. The learned Chief Justice passed an order to refer this matter before the Full Bench to resolve the issue and give appropriate directions and guidance in the matter for the future administration of justice in the High Court of Gujarat. Hence this Reference. CIVIL REFERENCE NO. 2 OF 2009: Upon Special Civil Application No.9201 of 2005 being listed before the Division Bench (Coram: B.J. Shethna and M.C. Patel, JJ), on th March 2006, the learned Court was pleased to observe as follows :- “1. In this matter, learned Senior Advocate Mr Y.N. Oza, appearing with Mr R.S. Sanjanwala for respondent Nos.9 and 10 tried to make a mention for adjourning this case. It is noticed by this Court that designated Senior Advocates are at times mentioning the matters either for circulation, or for adjournments, or for any other purposes, which is against rules and very basis of being designated Senior Advocates. It is also noticed that mentioning is being made that designated Senior Advocate is appearing in the matter and learned Judge taking up such matter ordering “Not Before Me” as he is not taking up the matters of such designated Senior Advocate, which causes great inconvenience and embarrassment to others. It is also noticed that some times, designated Senior Advocates are seeking adjournments on the ground of advocate on record not available and without their presence matters are argued without proper assistance. It is also noticed that designated Senior Advocates are appearing through either associates or firms of his own office, which is against the basic concept of Senor Advocates. 2. All these things are against well established practice prevailing in the Supreme Court, as ordered by Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. 3. Hence, the Registry is directed to bring it to the notice of all the designated Senior Advocates on record and the members of the Bar through their President, Mr Y.N. Oza, who himself is appearing in this matter for respondent Nos.9 and 10, along with Mr R.S. Sanjanwala, that:- i. No designated Senior Advocate will henceforth be permitted to make a mention before any court either for circulation or for adjournments or for any other purposes. ii. ii. Request made by any advocate on record to adjourn the matter on the ground of ‘designated Senior Advocate not available’ or ‘it is not convenient to the designated Senior Advocate’ , will not be entertained. iii. No mentioning will be made before a Judge that designated Senior Advocate is appearing whose matters are not taken up by learned Judge. In such type of cases, the designated Senior Advocate should rescue [sic] himself or herself from appearing in such matters. iv. Henceforth, no designated Senior Advocate will be permitted to argue the case without the assistance of his advocate on record or his colleague sitting by his side. v. It is also not desirable, that designated Senior Advocate appears either through associates or firm of his or her own office. 4. This order was passed in presence of designated Senior Advocates like, Mr Sudhir I. Nanavati, Mr S.H. Sanjanwala and Mr Oza, who is also President of the Bar. We were also ably assisted by Mr. Girish Bhatt. We highly appreciate his assistance. 5. In view of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, instead of designated Senior Advocate, Mr. Y.N. Oza, now a request was made by Mr R.S. Sanjanwala to adjourn the matter. Put up on 24.4.2006. 6. Copy of this order be circulated to all the courts by the Registrar General forthwith.” Consequently, in compliance with the above order, the Registry circulated a copy of the above order to all the Courts. Criminal Misc. Application No.14828 to 14830 of 2005 with Criminal Misc. Application No.14833 of 2005 were subsequently placed before a learned single judge of this Court (Coram : B.J. Shethna, J) and the learned Court was pleased to pass the following directions to the Registry in the paragraph 20 of the order dated 7th April 2006. “20. Criminal Misc. Application No.14828 to 14830 of 2005 with Criminal Misc. Application No.14833 of 2005 were subsequently placed before a learned single judge of this Court (Coram : B.J. Shethna, J) and the learned Court was pleased to pass the following directions to the Registry in the paragraph 20 of the order dated 7th April 2006. “20. In view of the above, while allowing all the four applications and quashing and setting aside all these four complaints filed by the complaints before the Trial Court and the order of process issued by the Trial Court qua the applicant-accused No.3, following directions are issued: (i) That, henceforth no advocate will make his/her appearance directly or indirectly before the Judge who is not taking up his/her matters, and (ii) No advocate, whose matters are not taken up by the particular Judge, will either directly or indirectly file his appearance and challenge or defend the order passed by such Judge before higher forum in any other proceedings. Office to follow these directions strictly.” Thereafter, the above order was placed before the then Chief Justice on 29th April 2006 and the learned Chief Justice was pleased to pass an order to issue a Circular to comply with the above directions of the Court. Subsequently, as it appears from the office note of the Registry, in the meeting of the then learned Chief Justice with the learned Senior Advocates, Advocate General, Additional Advocate General and office bearers of Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association held on 16th July 2009, it was resolved to place the issue relating to directions given in above Special Civil Application No.9201 of 2005 and Criminal Misc. Application No.14828 to 14830 of 2005 with Criminal Misc. Application No.14833 of 2005, before a Full Bench. Hence, this Reference. CRIMINAL REFERENCE No.1 of 2009: By filing a Note dated 8th July 2009 in Criminal Revision Application No.52 of 2005, the learned Advocate Mr. M.M. Tirmizi stated as under: “Above application is awaiting final hearing. The Advocate for the respondent has filed the urgent note to the registry dated 1.7.2009 and surprisingly the revision has been notified “For Orders” on 6.7.2009. In all my matters whenever, I have filed urgent notes for hearing, the applicants or petitions have never been notified so far. M.M. Tirmizi stated as under: “Above application is awaiting final hearing. The Advocate for the respondent has filed the urgent note to the registry dated 1.7.2009 and surprisingly the revision has been notified “For Orders” on 6.7.2009. In all my matters whenever, I have filed urgent notes for hearing, the applicants or petitions have never been notified so far. I need to understand under what circumstances, the above Criminal Revision was notified on the board without filing separate application for fixing early date of hearing. I am constrained to send this complaint / letter by registered AD as the registry has never been endorsing receipt of any note or letter as informed by my clerk.” In this connection, it may be mentioned that while hearing First Appeal No.1241 of 1997* a Division Bench of this Court (Coram: B.J. Shethna and M.C. Patel, JJ) was pleased to pass the following oral order dated 4th April 2005. “There is a sick note of Mr Japi for the respondent. No note for fixing early date of hearing can be entertained. Learned advocate has to file proper Civil Application for fixing early date of hearing by making out Special case in it. Hence, no order on this note. Before parting, we must state that proper course for fixing early date of hearing is to file proper civil application making out a special case in it. Henceforth, the Office shall not entertain any such note and insist for civil application for fixing early date of hearing.” Therefore, consequent to the placement of the order passed by learned Court (Coram: B.J. Shethna and M.C. Patel, JJ) before the learned Chief Justice, a Circular in this behalf was issued to all the Judicial Departments not to entertain any such note for fixing early date of hearing and to insist on filing Civil Application for fixing early date of hearing. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Chief Justice. The learned Chief Justice passed an order to refer this matter before the Full Bench to resolve the issue and give the directions and guidance in the matter for the future administration of justice in the High Court of Gujarat. Hence this Reference. CRIMINAL REFERENCE 2 OF 2009. Upon Criminal Misc. Application No.14828 to 14830 of 2005 with Criminal Misc. The learned Chief Justice passed an order to refer this matter before the Full Bench to resolve the issue and give the directions and guidance in the matter for the future administration of justice in the High Court of Gujarat. Hence this Reference. CRIMINAL REFERENCE 2 OF 2009. Upon Criminal Misc. Application No.14828 to 14830 of 2005 with Criminal Misc. Application No.14833 of 2005 being listed before a learned Single Judge (Coram: B.J. Shethna, J.) on 7th April 2006, the Court was pleased to observe as follows: “1. Rule. Shri R.C. Kodekar, learned APP waives service of notice of rule for the respondent No.1-State of Gujarat and learned counsel Shri S.P. Majmudar waives service of notice of rule for the respondent No.2-complainant in all these four matters. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx In Special Civil Application No.9201 of 2005, Division Bench of this Court passed the following order on 27.3.2006:- “ORDER 1. In this matter, learned Senior Advocate Mr Y.N. Oza, appearing with Mr R.S. Sanjanwala for respondent Nos.9 and 10 tried to make a mention for adjourning this case. It is noticed by this Court that designated Senior Advocates are at times mentioning the matters either for circulation, or for adjournments, or for any other purposes, which is against rules and very basis of being designated Senior Advocates. It is also noticed that mentioning is being made that designated Senior Advocate is appearing in the matter and learned Judge taking up such matter ordering “Not Before Me” as he is not taking up the matters of such designated Senior Advocate, which causes great inconvenience and embarrassment to others. It is also noticed that some times, designated Senior Advocates are seeking adjournments on the ground of advocate on record not available and without their presence matters are argued without proper assistance. It is also noticed that designated Senior Advocates are appearing through either associates or firms of his own office, which is against the basic concept of Senor Advocates. 2. All these things are against well established practice prevailing in the Supreme Court, as ordered by Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. 3. It is also noticed that designated Senior Advocates are appearing through either associates or firms of his own office, which is against the basic concept of Senor Advocates. 2. All these things are against well established practice prevailing in the Supreme Court, as ordered by Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. 3. Hence, the Registry is directed to bring it to the notice of all the designated Senior Advocates on record and the members of the Bar through their President, Mr Y.N. Oza, who himself is appearing in this matter for respondent Nos.9 and 10, along with Mr R.S. Sanjanwala, that:- i. No designated; Senior Advocate will henceforth be permitted to make a mention before any court either for circulation or for adjournments or for any other purposes. ii. Request made by any advocate on record to adjourn the matter on the ground of ‘designated Senior Advocate not available’ or ‘it is not convenient to the designated Senior Advocate’ , will not be entertained. iii. No mentioning will be made before a Judge that designated Senior Advocate is appearing whose matters are not taken up by learned Judge. In such type of cases, the designated Senior Advocate should rescue [sic] himself or herself from appearing in such matters. iv. Henceforth, no designated Senior Advocate will be permitted to argue the case without the assistance of his advocate on record or his colleague sitting by his side. v. It is also not desirable, that designated Senior Advocate appears either through associates or firm of his or her own office. 4. This order was passed in presence of designated Senior Advocates like, Mr Sudhir I. Nanavati, Mr S.H. Sanjanwala and Mr Oza, who is also President of the Bar. We were also ably assisted by Mr. Girish Bhatt. We highly appreciate his assistance. 5. In view of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, instead of designated Senior Advocate, Mr. Y.N. Oza, now a request was made by Mr R.S. Sanjanwala to adjourn the matter. Put up on 24.4.2006. 6. Copy of this order be circulated to all the courts by the Registrar General forthwith. (B.J. SHETHNA, J.) (M.C. PATEL, J.) 19. It has also come to the notice of this Court than an advocate whose matters are not placed before a particular Judge, challenging orders of such Judge before Higher Forum or files his appearance in other proceedings. 6. Copy of this order be circulated to all the courts by the Registrar General forthwith. (B.J. SHETHNA, J.) (M.C. PATEL, J.) 19. It has also come to the notice of this Court than an advocate whose matters are not placed before a particular Judge, challenging orders of such Judge before Higher Forum or files his appearance in other proceedings. When a Judge is not taking up matters of particular advocate, then how an advocate can later on accept matter where a Judge has passed an order ? In my consider opinion, it is not permissible at all. 20. In view of the above, while allowing all the four applications and quashing and setting aside all these four complaints filed by the complaints before the Trial Court and the order of process issued by the Trial Court qua the applicant-accused No.3, following directions are issued: (i) That, henceforth no advocate will make his/her appearance directly or indirectly before the Judge who is not taking up his/her matters, and (ii) No advocate, whose matters are not taken up by the particular Judge, will either directly or indirectly file his appearance and challenge or defend the order passed by such Judge before higher forum in any other proceedings. Office to follow these directions strictly.” 21. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all these applications are allowed. All the four complaints namely Criminal Case Nos.2473, 2474, 2475 and 2476 of 2003 filed by the complainant-Company against the applicant-accused No.3 before the learned J.M.F.C. Surat and the order of process issued by the learned J.M.F.C., First Court, Surat below it against the applicant-original accused No.3 are hereby quashed and set aside qua the present applicant-accused No.3. Rule is made absolute. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated.” The above order was placed before the Chief Justice on 29th April 2006 and the learned Chief Justice was pleased to pass order to issue a Circular to comply with the above directions of the Hon’ble Court. Subsequently, in the meeting of the learned Chief Justice with the learned Senior Advocates, Advocate General, Additional Advocate General and office bearers of Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association held on 16th July 2009, it was resolved to place the issue relating to directions given in above Special Civil Application No.9201 of 2005 and Criminal Misc. Application No.14828 to 14830 of 2005 with Criminal Misc. Application No.14828 to 14830 of 2005 with Criminal Misc. Application No.14833 of 2005, before a Full Bench. Hence, this Reference. STAMP REFERENCE No.1 of 2009 Upon the First Appeal No.1241of 1997* being listed before the Division Bench (Coram: B.J. Shethna and M.C. Patel, JJ), on 4th April 2005, the learned Court was pleased to observe as follows :- “There is a sick note of Mr Japi for the respondent. No note for fixing early date of hearing can be entertained. Learned advocate has to file proper Civil Application for fixing early date of hearing by making out Special case in it. Hence, no order on this note. Before parting, we must state that proper course for fixing early date of hearing is to file proper civil application making out a special case in it. Henceforth, the Office shall not entertain any such note and insist for civil application for fixing early date of hearing.” Subsequently, the Registry placed the order before the then Chief Justice and the learned Chief Justice was pleased to give direction to issue a Circular to the Judicial Branches not to entertain any such note for fixing early date of hearing and to insist on filing of Civil Application for fixing early date of hearing. By filing a Note dated 8th July 2009 in Criminal Revision Application No.52 of 2005, the Learned Advocate Mr. M.M. Tirmizi stated as under:- “Above application is awaiting final hearing. The Advocate for the respondent has filed the urgent note to the registry dated 1.7.2009 and surprisingly the revision has been notified “For Orders” on 6.7.2009. In all my matters whenever, I have filed urgent notes for hearing, the applicants or petitions have never been notified so far. I need to understand under what circumstances, the above Criminal Revision was notified on the board without filing separate application for fixing early date of hearing. In all my matters whenever, I have filed urgent notes for hearing, the applicants or petitions have never been notified so far. I need to understand under what circumstances, the above Criminal Revision was notified on the board without filing separate application for fixing early date of hearing. I am constrained to send this complaint / letter by registered AD as the registry has never been endorsing receipt of any note or letter as informed by my clerk.” However, as the learned advocates were accustomed to the filing of the notes for fixing the early date of hearing and were insisting on circulation of the same before the concerned Court for order thereon, the Registry was in an embarrassing position as to whether such notes for fixing early date of hearing should be entertained or the learned advocate should be asked to file a separate application for fixing early date of hearing. Consequently, the Registry placed the subject before the then Chief Justice. The learned Chief Justice passed an order to refer this matter before the Full Bench to resolve the issue and give the directions and guidance in the matter for the future administration of justice in the High Court of Gujarat. Hence this Reference.” 3. When all these matters were taken up together, Mr Yatin Oza, the learned Senior Advocate and Mr Bhargav Bhatt, the learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the Gujarat Advocates’ Association, advanced a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of all these References at the instance of the then Chief Justice of this Court. 4. According to the learned counsel, the Reference to a Larger Bench can be initiated only at the instance of a Judge sitting singly or the Judges of a Division Bench or even the Judges of a Larger Bench, provided the said Court while dealing with a judicial matter proposes to disagree with the view earlier taken by any other Bench of this Court on the selfsame point. According to the learned counsel, in these cases, the subject-matter of dispute is the proposition of law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court, referred to above, consisting of of Justice Shethna and Justice Patel and, thus, unless another Judge of this Court sitting singly or another Division Bench, in judicial side, disagrees with the above view, there is no scope of referring the matter to the Chief Justice for constitution of a Larger Bench. According to the learned counsel, in the cases before us, the decision given by the said Division Bench while laying down the proposition of law has not been appealed against by the aggrieved party and has attained finality and the said decision is binding upon a Division Bench or a learned Single Judge of this Court as a precedent while deciding any subsequent judicial matter. In such circumstances, the Chief Justice of this Court, sitting in administrative capacity, is not authorized by law to make a Reference to a Larger Bench for the purpose of deciding the correctness of the said decision of the Division Bench. In other words, according to the learned counsel, the initiation of Reference is not permissible under law unless there exists a pending judicial matter where the Judges of the Bench or a learned Single Judge has referred the matter on judicial side before the Chief Justice. There learned counsel, therefore, pray for dismissal of these References as not maintainable. 5. Therefore, the question that falls for determination in all these References is, whether the Chief Justice of this Court, in his administrative capacity, can suo motu initiate the proceeding for Reference to a Larger Bench notwithstanding the fact that there is no request to that effect by any of the Benches of this court or by a learned Single Judge while deciding any judicial matter. 6. In order to appreciate the aforesaid preliminary objection, it will be profitable to refer to Rules 5 and 6 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, which are quoted below :- “Rule 5. (1) A single Judge may refer any matter before him or question arising in such matter to a division bench of two Judges, or a larger bench. In order to appreciate the aforesaid preliminary objection, it will be profitable to refer to Rules 5 and 6 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, which are quoted below :- “Rule 5. (1) A single Judge may refer any matter before him or question arising in such matter to a division bench of two Judges, or a larger bench. (2) A Division Bench of two Judges may refer any matter before it or any question arising therein or any question referred to it under Sub-rule (1) above to a Larger Bench. Rule 6. Powers of Chief Justice to order hearing by a larger Bench: Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Chief Justice may by a special or general order direct that any matter or class of matters be placed before a Division Bench or a Special Bench of two or more Judges.” 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association and after going through the aforesaid provisions of Rules 5 and 6 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, it appears that Rule 5 authorises either a learned Single Judge or a Division Bench to refer the matter pending before them or any question arising in such matter to a Division Bench of two-Judges or a larger Bench respectively. On such Reference being made, it is the duty of the Chief Justice to constitute either a Division Bench or a larger one for the decision on the question referred or for decision of the matter referred. 8. Rule 6 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, on the other hand, authorizes the Chief Justice of the High Court to direct either by a special or a general order that any matter or class of matters should be placed before a Division Bench or a Special Bench of two or more Judges. 9. In our view, Rule 6 of the Rules of 1993 merely authorizes the Chief Justice to place any pending matter or any type of pending matters to a Division Bench or a Larger Bench notwithstanding the fact that according to the Rules of 1993 those matters are required to be decided by any learned Single Judge or a Division Bench fixed by the Chief Justice in exercise of his power of fixation of roster. The aforesaid Rule also authorizes the Chief Justice to place the matter, which is otherwise required to be heard by a Division Bench, for hearing before a Larger Bench. 10. We find substance in the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association that in the matter of References, the source of Reference must be a judicial order passed by either a learned Single Judge or any Bench while deciding a judicial matter. The Chief Justice, in his administrative capacity, cannot constitute a Larger Bench for the purpose of deciding a pure question of law simply because the Chief Justice is of the view that such question, notwithstanding a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in one way or other, is required to be heard by a Larger Bench. Even if on any important question, there is no decision of this court, such fact cannot enable a learned Chief Justice to constitute a larger bench suo motu in exercise of administrative power. 11. We are quite conscious of the inherent power of the Chief Justice as the “master of roster”. By virtue of such power, it is for the Chief Justice to decide which of the learned judges or the existing benches should decide any particular matter or a type of the matters. Such inherent power, however, does not authorize a Chief Justice to make a Reference in a judicial side by taking aid of his suo motu order in administrative capacity. 12. A right of Reference, like the one of appeal, review or revision, is a substantive right and is a creature of statute and should be exercised strictly in the manner as provided for in the statute which creates such right. The provision for Reference to a larger bench is provided in Rule 5 of the Rules of 1993 enacted by this court which has the force of law. The above Rule enables a court sitting in judicial side to refer a pending matter before it or a question arising therein to a larger bench. If such right is exercised by a court, the matter should be placed before the Chief Justice for passing appropriate order for placing the same before the Larger Bench as he chooses in terms of Rule 6. If such right is exercised by a court, the matter should be placed before the Chief Justice for passing appropriate order for placing the same before the Larger Bench as he chooses in terms of Rule 6. Thus, there is no scope of referring any question at the instance of the Chief Justice in his administrative capacity to a larger bench which is not preceded by a Reference at the instance of a court sitting in judicial capacity and relating to any matter pending in such court. 13. We find that so far as the Public Interest Litigation is concerned, the High Court Gujarat (Practice and Procedure for Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 vide Rule 9 authorizes the High Court to suo motu treat any matter or issue as a Public Interest Litigation provided the matter or issue concerned falls within its purview and in such type of cases, the bench vested with the jurisdiction by the learned Chief Justice to hear Public Interest Litigation can initiate such proceeding based on letter, petition or knowledge relating to the matter in question as provided in Rule 5 thereof. We are also quite conscious of the position that under the Contempt of Courts Act, the High Court is vested with suo motu power of initiating contempt but such power should also be exercised in judicial side by the Court having determination to decide such question. Similarly, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court in judicial side can initiate suo motu proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against any order passed by the Court or the Tribunal who are subordinate to the High Court. 14. There are also other provisions of the statutes enabling the High Court to take suo motu action, as for example, Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but even under those two statutes, the power must be exercised by the bench vested with the appropriate determination to hear the connected matter while exercising judicial power. 15. 15. However, so far the Reference by a learned Single Judge of the Court or a Bench of this Court is concerned, Rule 5 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 is the statutory provision exclusively dealing with the same and on the basis of such provision, there is no scope of initiating a suo motu Reference by a Chief Justice in his administrative capacity. 16. We, therefore, find that the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association has substance and on that ground alone, we dispose of all these suo motu References as not maintainable. We make it clear that we have otherwise not gone into the merit of the questions referred to in these References.