JUDGMENT : 1. The records reveal that the Hon’ble, The Chief Justice, nominated/assigned Special Appeal Defective No.24 of 2020 (State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Department of Higher Education Government of U.P. Lucknow and another v. S.M. College, Chadausi through its Secretary, Shantanu Kumar & another) to be listed before a Bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bala Krishna Narayana, as per order dated 16th January, 2020. However, the office report dated 20th January, 2020, reads as follows:- “Reference Hon’ble Court’s Order dt. 17/01/2020 and Hon’ble CJ’s Order for the new roster w.e.f. 20/01/2020 and continuation of administrative orders dt. 16/12/13 regarding PH and TU cases. The case is put up for orders before Hon’ble regular court of the case dealing with the roster.” 2. The administrative order of the Hon’ble, The Chief Justice, dated 16th December, 2013 – which has been referred to in the office report dated 20th January, 2020 – reads as follows: “No pending case, civil or criminal, shall be treated as part heard or tied up in a Court after the commencement of a new roster. All pending cases shall be listed before the appropriate Bench dealing with such matters in accordance with the fresh roster, unless so ordered by the Chief Justice in a specific case hereafter.” 3. A plain reading of the administrative order of the Hon’ble, The Chief Justice dated 16th December, 2013, reveals that the same would be applicable only in respect of pending cases – civil or criminal– which have been treated as either “part heard” or “tied up” in a Court. This is neither a “part heard” matter nor a “tied up” matter. Rather, this is a matter which has been nominated/specially assigned by the Hon’ble, The Chief Justice, to be listed before a Bench presided over by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bala Krishna Narayana. In fact, “tied up” cases and “partly heard” cases have been clearly defined in Rule 14 (1) under Chapter V of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, which reads as follows: “14. Tied up cases.–(1) A case partly heard by a Bench shall ordinarily be laid before the same Bench for disposal. A case in which a Bench has merely directed notice to issue to the opposite party or passed an ex parte order shall not be deemed to be a case partly heard by such Bench.” 4. Tied up cases.–(1) A case partly heard by a Bench shall ordinarily be laid before the same Bench for disposal. A case in which a Bench has merely directed notice to issue to the opposite party or passed an ex parte order shall not be deemed to be a case partly heard by such Bench.” 4. The administrative order of the Hon’ble The Chief Justice dated 16th December, 2013, which has been relied on in the office report dated 20th January, 2020, as such, will not be applicable in the instant case. 5. If a nominated/specially assigned matter is released by a Bench – not being a “tied up” or a “part heard” case – the Registry ordinarily should place it before the Hon’ble, The Chief Justice, for an appropriate order of fresh assignment or a direction from the Hon’ble, The Chief Justice, for the matter to be listed before the regular Bench. In this case, however, the matter has been placed before us by virtue of the office report dated 20th January, 2020, which does not refer to any such direction of the Hon’ble, The Chief Justice, consequent upon the order dated 17th January, 2020, passed by the Division Bench presided over by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bala Krishna Narayana. 6. The Registry is therefore directed to place the matter before the Hon’ble, The Chief Justice for necessary order.