GOPALA GOWDA, J.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition the petitioner is seeking to quash the order dated 1-9-2009 passed by the Hon'ble chief Justice directing to post the matter before the Bench having roster of LB-BMP. A declaration is also sought that Hon'ble Chief justice has no authority to order to place an application filed to recall an order dismissing the writ petition before a Judge other than the Judge who passed the dismissal order and the impugned order is contrary to Rule 5 of high Court of Karnataka Rules. 1959.

( 2 ) THE circumstances leading to file this writ petition are :-W. P. No. 13918/2008 is filed by M/s. Aakruthi City Ltd. challenging the decision of Government of Karnataka dated 26-9-2008. In that writ petition the petitioner herein is the 5th respondent. The said writ petition was dismissed on 14-8-2009 for non-prosecution. To recall the said order, an application was filed, to which objections was filed. Since the Hon'ble Judge who passed the dismissal order was not available in the principal Bench, Hon'ble Chief Justice passed the following order :

"since an appeal has also been preferred against the order dated 28-8-2009, it may not be practically possible to post even the part heard matters before the Hon'ble Judge concerned before whom the matter is pending as part heard either at Gulbarga or Dharwad. Hence post the matter before Hon'ble Judge having roaster viz. ANVG on 2-9-2009. "

According to the petitioner herein, the said application was to be considered only by die judge who passed the dismissal order under rule 5 of the Rules.

( 3 ) IN the writ petition, only Hon'ble Chief justice is arrayed as respondent. The petitioner and respondents in W. P. No. 13918/2008 are not arrayed as respondents. Since they are necessary and proper parties, the office has raised objection in that regard as also for making Hon'ble Chief Justice as respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not complied with office objections. Since memo was filed to list the matter on the ground that it is very urgent, the matter was listed with office objections. Mr. Naganand. learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made oral application to implead the omitted parties as respondents. A memo is also filed to this effect by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The oral application is allowed and the counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the left out respondents and to amend the cause title.

( 4 ) SO far as the office objection relating to arraying Hon'ble Chief Justice as respondent is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner made a note to the following effect :-

"as per the decision of this Hon'ble Court in Sippegowda's case, the Hon'ble Chief justice can be made as party if impugned action by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. This w. P. is against the orders of the Hon'ble chief Justice on the administrative side and not by the High Court. Hence R (G) cannot represent the Hon'ble Chief Justice. "

Therefore, firstly we deal with this aspect. Hon'ble Chief Justice is conferred with the powers of passing both judicial as well as administrative orders. The administrative powers are exercised for effective and smooth functioning of the office. Though he is the head of the institution, for all purposes the high Court is represented by Registrar General who is the custodian of all files, documents, records etc. In order to reduce his burden, decentralisation of powers and duties are made and judicial matters are entrusted to Registrar (Judicial) and administrative matters are assigned to Registrar (Administration ). But, the overall supervision and control of Administration of this Court are with Registrar General. He represents the high Court in all matters, including judicial matters and litigation. Therefore, instead of arraying Hon'ble Chief Justice, the Registrar General should have been arrayed as representing the High Court. That apart, Hon'ble chief Justice is the Constitutional functionar