JUDGMENT AND ORDER : A.K. Goswami, J. 1. Heard Mr. R. Jethmalani, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Bansal, Mr. A. Dewan, Mr. S. Malik, and Mr. D.D. Kamath, Advocates, appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned Standing counsel, Gauhati High Court, appearing for respondent No. 1; and Mr. G. Singh, learned Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh, appearing for respondent No. 18. 2. This writ application is filed by the Speaker of the Arunachal State Legislative Assembly praying for (a) a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 18.12.2015, passed by the Joint Registrar (Judicial), in WP (C) 7745/2015, (b) to direct listing of WP (C) 7745/2015 before an appropriate Bench other than the Single Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.K. Sharma, and (c) to pass such other/further orders as may be called for. A prayer for an interim order is also made seeking stay of further proceedings pending before Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.K. Sharma in WP (C) 7745/2015 and for passing such other/further orders as may be considered appropriate by this Court. 3. The present writ petitioner had filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was registered as WP (C) 7745/2015, and, in the present writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he had filed the said writ petition challenging (a) the order dated 09.12.2015 of the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh pre-poning the Session of the 6th Arunachal Pradesh State Legislative Assembly from 14.01.2016 to 16.12.2015, (b) Message of the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh dated 09.12.2015 fixing "Resolution for removal of Speaker" as first item of the business at the purported first sitting of 6th Session of the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly, (c) holding sittings of the purported 6th Session of the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly outside the House by resorting to unconstitutional means and manner, (d) Deputy Speaker's order dated 15.12.2015 quashing disqualification of respondent Nos. 2 to 15 made by the Speaker under Article 191(2) read with Para 2(1) (a) and 6(1) & (2) and Rule 3 (7) and Rule 6 of the Members of Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on ground of defection) Rules, 1987 and (e) Notification and resolution dated 16.12.2015 removing the Petitioner from the office of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Arunachal Pradesh. 4. 4. The writ petition was taken up for consideration on 17.12.2015 by a Single Bench and it will be necessary, at this stage, to refer to the Court because of the reasons for which the instant writ petition had come to be filed. The writ petition was listed before the Court of Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. Roy on 17.12.2015 and while issuing notice of motion, returnable on 01.02.2016, the impugned decisions were kept in abeyance until the case is considered next on 01.02.2016. 5. It is pleaded in the present writ petition that on 20.12.2015, at about 10-00 P.M., the counsel for the petitioner was served with copies of I.A. 2838/2015, I.A. 2839/2015 and I.A. 2843/2015, challenging the maintainability of the writ petition and seeking vacation/modification/alteration of the interim order dated 17.12.2015, passed in WP (C) 7745/2015. On 21.12.2015, the counsel for the petitioner was served with a changed/revised draft of one of the said I.A.s. The counsel was not informed as to when the aforesaid I.A.s would be taken up for consideration, but it so happened that the counsel for the petitioner learnt that the aforesaid I.A.s had been mentioned before the Division Bench headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.K. Sharma, in Court No. 4, and it is pleaded in the writ petition that as the matter pertained to a Single Bench, it was indicated that such mention could be made when the Hon'ble Judge would be sitting singly after recess. It is averred that the goings on were closely watched by the counsel for the petitioner and he was wondering as to how the matter came to be mentioned before the Division Bench in Court No. 4 as well as in the Single Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.K. Sharma after recess. During the course of mentioning, at the request of the counsel for the petitioner, a note was shown to the counsel, which was to the following effect: "(a) The matter could not be listed before Court No. 5 since Mr. D.K. Mishra, Senior Advocate is appearing/engaged in the matter; and (b) Thus, the matter will have to be listed before another appropriate Court." 6. Enquiries were thereafter made by the counsel for the petitioner and, during the course of such enquiry, it was learnt that there was a standing order stipulating that matters, wherein Mr. D.K. Mishra, Senior Advocate is appearing/engaged in the matter; and (b) Thus, the matter will have to be listed before another appropriate Court." 6. Enquiries were thereafter made by the counsel for the petitioner and, during the course of such enquiry, it was learnt that there was a standing order stipulating that matters, wherein Mr. D.K. Mishra is appearing, must not be listed before the Court of Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. Roy. 7. The edifice of the case of the petitioner is that there was a nefarious design on the part of the applicants in the I.A.s mentioned above in purposefully engaging Mr. D.K. Mishra to avoid Court No. 5 (Court of Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. Roy) and they, thus, indulged in Bench-hunting. 8. Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Apex Court had time and again deprecated the practise of Bench-hunting and the materials on record in the instant case would demonstrate in no uncertain terms that the applicants in I.A. 2838/2015, I.A. 2839/2015 and I.A. 2843/2015 had engaged Mr. D. K. Mishra, Senior Advocate, to take away the case from the Court of Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. Roy. Mr. Jethmalani has also submitted that in the hearing that had taken place on subsequent occasions, no arguments were advanced by Mr. Mishra. He has contended that the interim order was passed on a detailed consideration of the relevant facts and, though not strictly a part-heard matter in the Court of Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. Roy, it is akin to a part-heard case and, therefore, in the fitness of things, the same Bench ought to have considered the said I.A.s as the Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. Roy was also the relevant Roster Bench in the week commencing 21.12.2015. He has laid emphasis that without placing the matter before the Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. Roy, an order could not have been obtained from the Hon'ble Chief Justice to transfer the case to another Court, that too, without affording any opportunity to the counsel for the petitioner, who were all along in the dark as to the circumstances under which the case came to be transferred. Justice H. Roy, an order could not have been obtained from the Hon'ble Chief Justice to transfer the case to another Court, that too, without affording any opportunity to the counsel for the petitioner, who were all along in the dark as to the circumstances under which the case came to be transferred. He has argued that the transfer of the case could not have been made, as has been done in the instant case, by an administrative order and the transfer could only have been made through a judicial process by a judicial order. The case ought to have been listed before the Court of Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. Roy for his consideration. The same not having been done, the order constituting the Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.K. Sharma is vitiated and is liable to be set aside, he submits. 9. In this connection, he has drawn the attention of the Court to the case of Palakkal Martin v. Ansar and Another, reported in ILR 2013(4) Kerala 597, a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, and to the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 02.07.2007 in the case of M/s Tilak Raj, Madan Lal v. State of Punjab and Anr., rendered in CWP No. 9937/2005 (DB). It is submitted by him that the writ petition raises issues of considerable importance and therefore, this Court may consider placing the records of the case before a Division Bench by way of a reference. 10. Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned Standing counsel, Gauhati High Court, appearing for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that needless allegations have been made against the Registry of this Court and, as Mr. D.K. Mishra was to appear, as mentioned by the counsel for the applicants in the I.A.s, in view of the notification, which was issued way back on 02.11.2006, a note was put up before the Hon'ble Chief Justice (Acting) for constitution of a separate Bench. He has forcefully argued that by no stretch of imagination could it be said that the writ petition was tied-up with the Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. Roy in any manner and it is not a requirement that the same very Judge, who passes an interim order, has to consider an application for vacating the interim order. He has forcefully argued that by no stretch of imagination could it be said that the writ petition was tied-up with the Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. Roy in any manner and it is not a requirement that the same very Judge, who passes an interim order, has to consider an application for vacating the interim order. It is submitted that the practise of this Court is that it is not necessary that an application for vacation/modification/ alteration of an interim order has to be considered by the very same Judge and there is no notification to the contrary. The applications for vacation/modification/alteration of the interim orders are taken up by the Roster Bench and, though, in normal circumstances, in the instant case, the I.A.s would have been listed before the Court of Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. Roy, as the said Bench was still the Roster Bench for this matter, but as the Court of Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. Roy was not taking up any matter where Mr. D.K. Mishra was appearing, the Registry rightly put up a note before the Hon'ble Chief Justice (Acting). He has submitted that the order for placing the matter before Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.K. Sharma was passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice (Acting) and not by the order of the Joint Registrar (J), which is impugned in this writ proceeding. He has submitted that there is no requirement for offering an opportunity of being heard in the matter, like the present one, and the matter being purely within the domain of the Hon'ble Chief Justice in the administrative side, no case is made out for granting the reliefs as prayed for. In this connection, he has also cited a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand and Ors, reported in (1998) 1 SCC 1. 11. Learned State counsel, appearing for the State of Arunachal Pradesh did not make any submission in the proceeding. 12. There can be no manner of doubt that any attempt for Bench-hunting has to be curbed at the threshold as any indulgence given would erode the confidence of the people in the system of administration of justice. 13. 11. Learned State counsel, appearing for the State of Arunachal Pradesh did not make any submission in the proceeding. 12. There can be no manner of doubt that any attempt for Bench-hunting has to be curbed at the threshold as any indulgence given would erode the confidence of the people in the system of administration of justice. 13. With the aforesaid caveat, as I proceed to consider the submissions of the learned counsel of the appearing parties, I find that it is not in dispute that there is a notification dated 02.11.2006, which was issued by the Registrar (Judicial), Gauhati High Court, to the Registrar, Gauhati High Court in Kohima Bench, Shillong Bench, Imphal Bench, Agartalla Bench, Aizawl Bench, and the Deputy Registrar of the Gauhati High Court in the Itanagar Bench. The notification was issued on the subject of "listing of cases" and the relevant part of the said notification reads as follows: S. No. Name of Hon'ble Judges Name of Advocates 1. Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Meruno (i) Sri D.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocates (ii) Sri Akilo Zhimemi, Adv. Kohima Bench 2. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy Sri D.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate. Yours faithfully Registrar (Judl.)" 14. It appears that based on an application filed by one Mr. K. Saxena, Advocate, a note was put up by the Joint Registrar (Judicial), on 18.12.2015, before the Hon'ble Chief Justice (Acting) for constitution of a special Single Bench. The note reads as follows: "Hon'ble The Chief Justice (Acting) PUC is the application of Mr. Kamal Saxena, Advocate, whereby he has prayed for constitution of a single Bench to take up the matters pertaining to W.P. (C) No. 7745/2015 (Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.) as the learned Advocate is going to file and move an Interlocutory Applications for modification of the order dated 17.12.2015 passed by the Single Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy. The learned Advocate has also stated in his petition that he will be led by Senior Advocate Mr. D.K. Mishra in the said case, but there is a standing notification of this Hon'ble High Court for not placing any matters before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy where Mr. D.K. Mishra, Senior Advocate, appears. In view of the above, if your Lordship so pleases, a Special Single Bench may perhaps be constituted for taking up the above referred case. D.K. Mishra in the said case, but there is a standing notification of this Hon'ble High Court for not placing any matters before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy where Mr. D.K. Mishra, Senior Advocate, appears. In view of the above, if your Lordship so pleases, a Special Single Bench may perhaps be constituted for taking up the above referred case. Laid before you Lordship for information and necessary orders. Joint Registrar (Judicial) 18.12.2015" 15. On the said note, the Hon'ble Chief Justice (Acting) passed an order which is to the following effect: "to be placed before Hon'ble Justice B.K. Sharma". This order of the Chief Justice is dated 18.12.2015. 16. Going by the pleadings in the writ petition, it would appear that it is not the case of the writ petitioner that Mr. D.K. Mishra was not at all engaged in view of the statement made in paragraph 12 that "they had purposefully engaged Mr. D.K. Mishra". However, a question has been posed for consideration as to whether such engagement was with the oblique motive of taking out the case from the Court of Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. Roy. 17. It will be difficult to hold that the engagement of Mr. D.K. Mishra was with a purposeful design as, in the considered opinion of the Court, the case was not tied-up with the Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. Roy. Over a period of time, the case could have come before any other Judge assigned with the particular Roster Bench. If the Roster Bench was not that of Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. Roy in the week commencing 21.12.2015, the writ petition would have been listed before any other Bench taking up Bench-IV matters (relevant Roster Bench). It will also be relevant to note that the interim order was passed on 17.12.2015 after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 therein only. It is stated by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that I.A.s were filed by the respondent No. 1 in the said writ petition. 18. Cursus curiae est lex curiae. The practise of the Court is the law of the Court. The practise of this Court is that applications for vacation of the interim order is taken up by the Roster Bench of the day and such applications are not tied-up with the Bench passing the original interim order. 18. Cursus curiae est lex curiae. The practise of the Court is the law of the Court. The practise of this Court is that applications for vacation of the interim order is taken up by the Roster Bench of the day and such applications are not tied-up with the Bench passing the original interim order. An attempt of Bench-hunting could have, perhaps, been attributed had the matter been tied-up with a particular Bench. The same is not the case here. It is to be borne in mind that the applicants in the I.A.s had no role at all to play in the transfer of the case to the Court of Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.K. Sharma. 19. The administrative control of the High Court vests in the Hon'ble Chief Justice alone. On the judicial side, however, he is the first amongst equals. The Hon'ble Chief Justice is the master of the Roster and he alone has the prerogative to constitute Benches of the Court and allocate cases to the Benches so constituted. The puisne Judges can do only that work which has been allocated to them by the Hon'ble Chief Justice or under his directions. In the matter of constitution of Benches by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, prior intimation to the counsel appearing in a case is not at all contemplated. 20. In Prakash Chand (supra), the Apex Court had laid down that the Chief Justice can take cognisance of applications laid down before him (in the said case under Rule 55 of the extant Rules) and refer the case to a larger Bench for its disposal and he can exercise this jurisdiction even in relation to a part-heard case. Thus, even in a part-heard case, the authority of the Chief Justice is not denuded to transfer a case to another appropriate Bench. 21. I am unable to agree with the submission of Mr. Jethmalani that in the instant case the I.A.s ought to have been placed before Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. Roy in the first place. The notification was issued way back in the year 2006 specifically laying down that any case where Mr. D.K. Mishra is appearing, such case shall not be listed before Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. Roy. The Registry only followed the notification, which is not under challenge. The reliance placed by Mr. Justice H. Roy in the first place. The notification was issued way back in the year 2006 specifically laying down that any case where Mr. D.K. Mishra is appearing, such case shall not be listed before Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. Roy. The Registry only followed the notification, which is not under challenge. The reliance placed by Mr. Jethmalani in Palakkal Martin (supra) is distinguishable in the facts of this case as it appears that in that case there was no such notification specifically directing not to list cases in respect of a counsel, who is in the "avoid list". 22. In Tilak Raj, Madan Lal (supra), the Court had an occasion to observe that the State had misused the process of law by moving a rectification application before the successor Presiding Officer, rather than doing the same before the same officer for the reason best known to it and, therefore, the conduct of the State was not appreciated. The same does not appear to be the case here. 23. A counsel also has the right to appear in a case, albeit, without undermining the sanctity that is attached to the legal profession. No litigant can be heard to say that a particular case has to be heard by a particular Bench. 24. In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in this writ petition and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. No cost.