The authority of the Chief Justice in fixing the roster and transferring part-heard cases should be exercised in exceptional cases for special reasons, and compliance with the Contempt Rules, 1980 is essential.

JUDGMENT

DR. ARUIT PASAYAT, J.- Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 184-85 of 2002. The two letters patent appeals were directed against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 11-9-2002 in CC No. 493 of 2001 and CC No. 1211 of 2001. By said order learned Single Judge recorded a finding that the Government of Andhra Pradesh deliberately violated the orders passed by the Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 6511 and 6513 of 1999. It was held that the respondent in CC No. 185 of 2002 had filed a wrong sworn affidavit in Writ Petition No. 6513 of 1999 for which he is liable for perjury apart from other consequences. But the learned Judge took a lenient view in the matter after considering several factors including the unconditional apology.

2. During the hearing of the letters patent appeal one of the issues which came for consideration was whether instructions of the High Court in the matter listing of the contempt matters were complied with. The Division Bench by the impugned order held that the Chief Justice had the authority in fixing the roster and allot work to the Brother Judges. But the direction given by the Chief Justice not to post contempt case before the learned Judges whose orders have been violated but before Judges who are having provision to dispose of the matter runs counter to the rules of the Contempt of Court Rules, 1980 (in short "the Contempt Rules") framed by the High Court under Section 23 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (in short "the Contempt Act") read with Articles 215 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 129 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Hence it was directed that Registry to post contempt case filed either by the aggrieved person or initiated by the Court in exercise of suo motu powers before the Judge or Judges in respect of a whose judgment the contempt is alleged or the Judge or Judges who initiated the contempt proceedings as contemplated under Rules 12 and 15 of the Contempt Rules.

3. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has filed the appeal in question. Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates' Association has been impleaded by orders of this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant and the Andhra b Pradesh High Court Advocates' Association submitted that the matter is having serious implications and this Court should lay down the norms. 4. The primary grievance seems to be transfer of the cases which were coming for hearing under the captions "CAV", "for judgment" and "for pronouncement of judgments". The following orders need to be quoted. They c are as follows:

"(A) Note to be printed in the weekly cause-list dated 4-8-2003 at the end of the sitting provision of the Hon' ble Judges:

'Contempt cases (admission and final hearing) arising from orders in the main cases or in the miscellaneous petitions will be posted before the Hon'ble Single Bench or the Division Bench d having the provision to dispose of the main proceedings as per the roster, as the case may be.' (B) Clarification In pursuance of the instructions of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice the following note was printed in the weekly cause-list dated 21st July, 2003:

'All matters under various captions including "for judgment" stand released from the Benches not having the subject on its roster and will be posted before the Benches concerned having the said subject on its roster.' I am further instructed to clarify that those proceedings where the judgments are reserved under the caption 'CAY' will not come under the f purview of the caption 'for judgment' of the above note. Soon after receiving the court slips either from the Court Officers or the Personal Secretaries to the Hon'ble Judges, where the cases are reserved for judgment, such proceedings will find place in the cause-list under the caption 'for pronouncement of judgment' on the day when judgment is ready and is to be pronounced. I am further instructed to clarify