2010 Supreme(Kar) 358

2010(4) Kar. L.J. 175 (DB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT...BENCH AT DHARWAD
N. KUMAR AND B. SREENIVASE GOWDA. JJ.
M.S. POOJARI
Versus
THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE AND OTHERS
Writ Petition No.3928 of 2005 (S)
Decided On : 26th March, 2010

Headnote:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Article 226: [N. Kumar & B. Sreenivase Gowda, JJ] Judicial Review of Administrative orders passed by Chief Justice of High Court or other Judges of High Court as his delegatee - Held, Judicial review of such order to decide its correctness must necessarily be done by independent authority, not by very same authority who has passed order. Rule against bias, which postulates that no man can be Judge in his own case is applicable.

       KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 - Section 9(xii): [N. Kumar & B. Sreenivase Gowda, JJ] Orders passed by Chief Justice and Judges on administrative side - Writ petitions filed by employees of High Court and of Subordinate Courts and Judicial Officers challenging validity of - Direction issued by Chief Justice in Circular issued on 5-6-2006 to post all such writ petitions before Court Hall No. 1 which is assigned to Chief Justice - Held, The circular explicitly makes it clear that writ petitions challenging the order passed by Chief Justice and the Judges on the administrative side are to be posted before Court Hall No. 1. Each Judge of the High Court has been assigned a Court Hall in the Principal Bench at Bangalore. Even in the circuit benches, Court halls are assigned to Judges. Court Hall No. 1 is assigned to Chief Justice at the Principal Bench as well as at Circuit Benches. Therefore, Court Hall No. 1 is court where the Chief Justice sits. In the said circular he has not directed that such writ petitions should be heard by a Division Bench. Therefore, the said circular cannot be construed as a notification allocating a Single Judge matter to a Division Bench. Probably, the office has misread the circular and is posting the matters before Court Hall No. 1 where normally the Chief Justice sits and presides over a Division Bench. But it is not uncommon that the Chief Justice sitting in Court Hall No. 1 also sits single. In the absence of the specific direction in the circular directing the office to post Single Judge matter before a Division Bench, the said circular cannot be read as the Chief Justice fixing the quorum of two Judges for hearing matters referred to therein. Under Section 9 of the Act, all writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India except where it relates to the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus and Articles 227 and 228 of the constitution of India are to be heard by a Single Judge. The Circular does not prescribe the quorum of the Judges to hear such matters. Therefore, in the absence of specific words in the circular allocating the matters referred to in the circular to a Division Bench, the Division Bench has no jurisdiction to decide a matter which exclusively falls within the jurisdiction of a Single Judge. of a Single Judge. The Chief Justice in the said circular has not allocated Single Judge matter to Division Bench. It is the High Court office which is listing such matters before the Bench of Judges. It is a mistake committed by the office which needs to be rectified. Circular was quashed.

       KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 - Sections 4 & 9: [N. Kumar & B. Sreenivase Gowda,JJ] Posting of Cases before Bench - High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959 - Circular issued by Chief Justice - High court Peon sought for quashing the Circular - Directions in the Circular to post the writ petitions filed by the Judicial Officers, employees of the High Court and the subordinate Courts before Court Hall No.1 of the Principal Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, presided over by Chief Justice - Legality of the issuance of Circular -Power of the Chief Justice in regard to constitution of Benches, allocation of Judicial work, fixing of quorum for hearing of cases - Whether the Chief Justice to be a Judge in his own case? - Concept of "Principles of Natural Justice"- The Rules ’Nemo Judex in Cause Sua’ or Nemo Debet Esse Judex in Propria Causa Sua and Alkiquis Noin Debet Esse Judex in Propria Causa Quia Non Potest Esse Judex at Pars" Nemo Potest Esse Simul Actor et Judex - Held, The Power of the Chief Justice in regard to constitution of Benches and allocation of judicial work has nothing to do with fixing of quorum for hearing of cases. If quorum is fixed for hearing of cases by the statutory provisions or rules, the Chief Justice should fix the quorum for hearing of cases as mandated in the statutory provisions or Rules. The impugned circular explicitly makes it clear that writ petition challenging the order passed by the Chief Justice and the Judges on the administrative side are to be posted before Court Hall No. 1. Court Hall No.1 is Court where the Chief Justice sits. The Chief Justice has directed the posting of Writ petitions before Court Hall No.1. In the said circular he has not directed that such Writ Petitions should be heard by a Division Bench. The said circular cannot be read as the Chief Justice fixing the quorum of two Judges for hearing matters referred to therein. Under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act, all Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India except where it relates to the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus and Articles 227 and 228 of the Constitution of India are to be heard by a Single Judge. The circular does not prescribe the quorum of the Judges to hear such matters. Therefore, in the absence of specific words in the circular allocating the matters referred to in the circular to a Division Bench, the Division Bench has no jurisdiction to decide a matter which exclusively falls within the jurisdiction of a Single Judge. Further, The administrative power exercised by the Chief Justice is subjected to scrutiny on the judicial side by the High Court like any action of any other authority. In the instant case, the complaint is of bias. The impugned circular states that the writ petitions filed by employees of the High Court, subordinate Courts and Judicial Officers challenging the orders passed by the Chief Justice and Judges on the administrative side, are directed to be posted before Court Hall No.1. The Chief Justice is a party to such orders, either directly or indirectly. The correctness of such orders is the subject matter of the writ petitions. The orders are passed by him or his delegates on the administrative side. By the impugned circular, the Chief Justice wants to decide the correctness of those orders on the judicial side. Therefore, the Chief Justice wants to be a Judge in his own case. The rule is, no man ought to be a Judge in his own case. The rule is, no man ought to be a Judge in his own case, because he cannot act as a Judge and at the same time be a party. No one can be, at the same time, a suitor and a judge. Judicial review is a basic structure of the Constitution. The Constitution and statutes provide for judicial review of orders passed on the administrative side by the High Court when the correctness of such orders are to be reviewed, naturally it should be by an independent authority and certainly not by the very authority who has passed the said order. Therefore, the impugned circular offends the principles of natural justice and render it void. It cannot be sustained.

       KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 - Sections 4 & 9: [N.Kumar & B. Sreenivase Gowda,JJ] High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959 - Rules relating to appeals, Original side appeals, Petitions, Special rules regarding writ petitions, references and also interlocutory matters - Sub-rule(1) Rule 1-Applications filed during the pendency of the appeal - Manner in which an Interlocutory Application is to be numbered -Notification issued by the Chief Justice informing the advocates and the litigant public that henceforth, Interlocutory Applications to be filed in all kinds of Civil, Criminal and Writ proceedings will be treated as Miscellaneous cases by assigning separate Miscellaneous numbers - Challenge as to -Held, When there is a specific provision which provides for Miscellaneous Petitions, when there is a specific provision for interlocutory matters as contained in Chapters VII and X respectively, when these provisions are followed for more than 50 years and it has become the practice of the Court, the Chief Justice has to issue directions or orders in conformity with the aforesaid statutory provisions and the practice of the Court. He cannot ignore them. The impugned circular serves no purpose. It only results in showing an increase in the number of cases filed and the cases which are pending, which would be quite misleading. It would affect the image of the High Court also. It does not stand the test of reason and objectivity. The impugned circular issued in this regard by the Learned Chief Justice is in contravention of the aforesaid statutory provisions and practice of the Court has no force of law. It would be illegal. Hence, it is liable to be quashed.

       KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RULES, 1959 - Chapter X: [N. Kumar & B. Sreenivase Gowda, JJ] Notification dated 8.12.2008 - Treating Interlocutory applications filed in civil, criminal and writ proceedings as miscellaneous cases by assigning to them separate miscellaneous number - Held, When the statutory rule already provides for procedure for disposal of such interlocutory applications, notification issued by High Court providing for different procedure in contravention of statutory rule cannot be sustained. Notification was quashed.