The CJ has the power to transfer cases on administrative grounds without a hearing, but the first and second provisos to Rule 2 of Chapter XXXI of the Appellate Side Rules, which purport to confer this power, are invalid for lack of compliance with statutory requirements.

ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA, J.

1. An important issue is raised in these proceedings regarding the powers of the Chief Justice of this Court to transfer a matter pending before a Bench of this Court to its principal seat by exercising administrative powers vesting in him as the Master of Roster. Another important issue involved in these Petitions is as regards the legality and validity of the Proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXXI of the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960 (for short "the Appellate Side Rules"). This challenge is in Writ Petition No. 1860 of 2014 (which is transferred from the Bench at Aurangabad). In Writ Petition No. 8182 of 2012, the challenge is to the legality and validity of the general orders dated 24th February 1993 and 6th January 2010 issued under the directions of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court on the administrative side by which he directed that certain categories of matters pending at Panaji, Aurangabad and Nagpur Benches of this Court stand transferred to the principal seat of this Court at Mumbai. The said orders have been passed in exercise of powers under Rules 1, 2 and 3 of Chapter XXXI of the Appellate Side Rules. In Writ Petition No. 8182 of 2012, the challenge is also to the order dated 26th March 2012 passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice by which, Writ Petition No. 9207 of 2011 pending before the Bench at Aurangabad was ordered to be transferred to the Principal Seat at Mumbai. As far as Writ Petition No. 10048 of 2012 (which is transferred from the Bench at Aurangabad) is concerned, the challenge is to the order dated 29th June 2012 passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court transferring Contempt Petition No. 277 of 2012 pending before the Bench at Aurangabad to the Principal Seat at Mumbai. The prayer is for issuing a writ for re-transfer the matter to the Bench at Aurangabad.

FACTS:

2. Before we go to the other factual aspects, we must note here that Rule 2 of Chapter XXXI of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 (for short "Appellate Side Rules") which is a subject matter of challenge, was added on the Rule Book on 7th August 1986. It was published in the Gazette Notification dated 28th August 1986. Rules 1 to 3 were substituted by the said Notification. The challenge is essentially to the Proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXXI of the Appellate Side Rules. The Rule 2 of Chapter XXXI of the Appellate Side Rules reads thus:-

"2. All appeals, applications, references and petitions including petitions for exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution arising in the Judicial Districts of Ahmednagar, Aurangabad, Beed, Jalgaon, Jalna, Nanded, Osmanabad, Parbhani and Latur which lie to the high Court at Bombay shall be presented to the Additional Registrar at Aurangabad and shall be disposed of by the Judges sitting at Aurangabad:

Provided that the Chief Justice may, in his discretion, order that any case or class of cases arising in any such District shall be heard at Bombay:

Provided further that the Chief Justice may, in his discretion, order that any case presented at Bombay be heard at Aurangabad."

The Rules 1 and 3 of the Chapter-XXXI are similar which apply to the matters filed at the Benches at Nagpur and Panaji (Goa).

3. The order dated 24th February 1993 has been issued under the directions of the Hon'ble Chief Justice in exercise of powers under aforesaid Rules 1 to 3 of Chapter XXXI of the Appellate Side Rules. By the said order, it was directed that all the proceedings pending at the Benches at Nagpur, Aurangabad and Panaji (Goa) and all the proceedings filed thereafter against the Hon'ble Chief Justice, this Court and its Officers or the District Judges by the Judicial Officers and Staff Members shall stand transferred to the Principal Seat at Mumbai. The order dated 6th January 2010 modifies the earlier order dated 24th February 1993. Relevant part of the said order dated 6th January 2010 reads thus:

"In exercise of the pow