JUDGMENT 1. The present application has been filed by the above named applicant with a prayer for directing the registry of this High Court to list the connected writ petition i.e., WP(C) No. 161 of 2022 before the Hon'ble Chief Justice on the administrative side for placing the matter before a larger bench of this High Court. Heard Mr. M. Rarry, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant, Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned Advocate General, Manipur appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 9 and 10. None of the other remaining respondents appeared before this court despite service of notice upon them. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, High Court of State of Telangana at Hyderabad and other High Courts in the country incorporated in their respective High Court rules that a Division Bench will hear matters challenging the order passed by the Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta but while framing the High Court of Manipur Rules, 2019, it has inadvertently not mentioned the manner in which a petition challenging the order passed by the Manipur Lokayukta is to be heard. However, under Rule 3(1)(d) of Chapter IV-A of the High Court of Manipur Rules, 2019, it is provided that an application shall be heard by a Division Bench if a Single Judge refer such application to the Chief Justice for placing it before a Division Bench having regard to the importance or complexity of the case. For ready reference, the provisions of the aforesaid Rule 3(1) of Chapter IV-A of the High Court of Manipur Rules, 2019 are reproduced hereunder:- '3(1) Every such application shall be made and heard before the Single Bench except where the Chief Justice otherwise directs: Provided that such application falling within any one or more of the following categories shall be heard by a Division Bench except where the Chief Justice otherwise directs: (a) Public Interest Litigation; (b) Habeas Corpus Application; (c) Application relating to externment or deportation; (d) Any application which a Single Judge may refer to the Chief Justice for placing it before the Division Bench having regard to the importance or complexity of the case. (e) Writ petition in which constitutional validity of any Act, Rules or any provisions thereof have been challenged.' 3. The learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that in an earlier round of litigation between the same parties and in respect of the same complaint case which was pending before the Manipur Lokayukta, a writ petition being WP(C) No. 899 of 2021 was filed by the present writ petitioners before this court for quashing the order dated 19-11-2021 and other connected orders of the Manipur Lokayukta and that while taking up the said writ petition and on the submission made by the counsel appearing for the parties for placing the matter before the larger bench, the learned Single Judge passed an order on 13-12-2021 in the aforesaid writ petition directing the registry of this court to list the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice on administrative side for appropriate order and thereafter, the Hon'ble Chief Justice directed the registry for listing the said writ petition before the Division Bench and the said writ petition was heard by a Division Bench and dismissed the same on merit on 20-12-2021. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant also submitted that all the writ petitions being WP(C) No. 75 of 2022, WP(C) No. 616 of 2022, WP(C) No. 168 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 171 of 2022, which have been filed assailing the order dated 07-02-2022 passed by the Manipur Lokayukta, were all placed before the Division Bench of this court and in fact WP(C) No. 75 of 2022 is still pending for consideration and disposal by a Division Bench of this court. In view of the above, Mr. M. Rarry, submitted that it will be just and proper for this court to refer the connected WP(C) No. 161 of 2022 to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for placing it before a Division Bench having regard to the importance and complexity involved in the said writ petition. 5. Mr. In view of the above, Mr. M. Rarry, submitted that it will be just and proper for this court to refer the connected WP(C) No. 161 of 2022 to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for placing it before a Division Bench having regard to the importance and complexity involved in the said writ petition. 5. Mr. M. Rarry, further submitted that while considering the prayer for passing the interim order in WP(C) No. 75 of 2022, a Division Bench of this court comprising of the Hon'ble Chief Justice and another Hon'ble Judge declined to grant any interim relief and accordingly, rejected the prayer for granting interim relief and that if any interim relief is granted by this court while hearing the connected writ petition, there will be conflicting order of this court on the same set of facts, subject matter and between the same parties. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that on the recommendation made by the Manipur Lokayukta in its order dated 07-02-2022 passed in Complaint Case No. 2 of 2020, criminal proceeding against the writ petitioners have already been initiated by registering an FIR No. 4(02)2022 CB-PS u/s 7(b)/13 PC Act & 120-B/34 IPC. The learned counsel submitted that if the connected WP(C) No. 161 of 2022 is allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the Manipur Lokayukta, the criminal proceeding against the writ petitioners and others will also go as a natural consequences. In view of the above, it has been submitted that the proceeding in the connected WP(C) No. 161 of 2022 is in the nature of criminal proceeding and that in view of the important and complex issues involved in the said writ petition, it would be expedient and in the interest of justice to refer the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for placing it before a Division Bench as provided under the aforesaid Rule 3(1)(d) of the High Court of Manipur Rules, 2019. The learned counsel for the applicant cited the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana and ors.', reported in (2017) 5 SCC 533 , (paras 28 to 31, 45, 51 to 56 and 61). 6. Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. The learned counsel for the applicant cited the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana and ors.', reported in (2017) 5 SCC 533 , (paras 28 to 31, 45, 51 to 56 and 61). 6. Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 submitted that initially WP(C) No. 161 of 2022, WP(C) No. 168 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 171 of 2022, assailing the judgment and order dated 07-02-2022 passed by the Manipur Lokayukta in Complaint Case No. 2 of 2020, were listed before a Division Bench of this High Court. When the said writ petitions were listed on 07-03-2022 before a Division Bench comprising of the Hon'ble Chief Justice and Hon'ble Justice M.V. Muralidaran, it was pointed out that as per the provisions of the High Court of Manipur Rules, 2019, the said writ petition is to be heard by a Single Judge and not by a Division Bench and the said Division Bench passed an order on 07-03-2022 directing the registry to list the said three cases before a Single Bench. It is also submitted by the learned senior counsel that the said order was passed by the Division Bench after hearing the submission made on behalf of the petitioners and after due consideration and also in the presence of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 that since a Division Bench comprising of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this High Court had already passed a judicial order for listing the connected writ petitions before a Single Bench, this court may not have the power and jurisdiction to pass any judicial order contrary to the order passed by the said Division Bench. The learned senior counsel further submitted that if the applicant is at all aggrieved by the order dated 07-03-2022 passed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid writ petition, it is open to the applicant to approach the Division Bench of this court either for modification of the said order or for recalling the same by filing appropriate applications or review petitions. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the present application is not at all maintainable and deserve to be dismissed as being devoid of merit. Mr. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the present application is not at all maintainable and deserve to be dismissed as being devoid of merit. Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 endorsed the submissions advanced by the senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 9 and 10. 7. The present application has been filed with a prayer for referring the connected writ petition to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for placing the said writ petition before the Division Bench having regard to the importance and complexity of the case as provided under Rule 3(1)(d) of Chapter IV-A of the High Court of Manipur Rules, 2019. After hearing the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after careful consideration, this court is of the considered view that even though a Single Judge of this court is empowered to refer the case to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for placing it before a Division Bench having regard to the importance or complexity of the case as provided under Rule 3(1)(d) of Chapter IV-A of the High Court of Manipur Rules, 2019, this court cannot exercise that power in the present case as a Division Bench of this court comprising of the Hon'ble Chief Justice had already passed a judicial order on 07-03-2022 in the connected writ petitions directing for listing the said writ petitions before a Single Bench of this court and this court is bound by the said order. This court is also of the considered view that if any order is passed by this court as prayed for by the applicant in the present application, such order will not only be contrary or conflicting to the order dated 07-03-2022 passed by the Division Bench in the connected writ petition, but the same will also be a nullity inasmuch as this court has no jurisdiction or power to pass any order which has the effect of superseding or overriding the order passed by the Division Bench of this court. 8. In view of the above, this court is not inclined to entertain the present application and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed, however without any cost. Needless to mention here that the applicant is at liberty to approach this court by filing appropriate petition before the appropriate forum for redressing any of its grievances.