The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Registrar and the Joint Registrar of the Patna High Court to ascertain from respondent no. 3. a Judge of this Court, as to whether the cases in which the petitioner appears as counsel shall be beard by the learned Judge or not.

A further direction has been sought for commanding the Registrar of this Court not to list the cases in which the petitioner appears as a counsel before the said learned Judge.

2. It has been alleged that there has been some unpleasant happening between the counsel and the said learned Judge resulting in initiation of a contempt proceeding against the said learned Judge. The said contempt proceeding was dismissed as being not maintainable by a judgment of the Special Bench, reported in AIR 1986 Pat 65. It has been averred that since then the Judge concerned has not been hearing and transferring the cases from his Court whenever the petitioner appears as a counsel. A list of cases has been disclosed in the writ petition which have been transferred by the learned Judge from his Court between the period December 1989 and January 1990. It has been contended that this attitude of the learned Judge causes considerable delay in the disposal of the cases in which the petitioner appears as a counsel. Faced with this situation, the petitioner moved the Chief Justice with slap in an open Court who was pleased to observe that it is for the learned Judge to give in writing that he would not hear the cases in which the petitioner appears as a counsel and he could not do anything in the matter.

3. The learned Judge has also not given anything in writing to the effect that the cases in which the petitioner appears as a counsel, be not listed before him names of three junior advocates attached to the petitioner have been given out who generally act as an advocate on record.

4. It has been stated in the writ petition that on assumption of office by the present chief Justice the system introduced for listing of cases is subjectwise before the Benches comprising of various Hon’ble Judges. Since the introduction of the said system the cases of the petitioner are being listed before the concerned Judge.

5. Inspite of "spectacular advance of-the law relating to mandamus conferring wide powers on the High Courts to issue writs in the nature of prerogative writs" as laid down and relied upon by petitioner in the case of Sri Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarn Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & others Vs. V. R. Rudani and others (A. I. R. 1989 S. C. 1607), - we do not think the power has been made so wide as to issue a direction to know in advance from a Judge how he is going to exercise his jurisdiction in a particular case.

6. The petitioner in this case wants us to command the Registry to find out from the learned Judge, who generally presides over a Division Bench, as to what would be his approach in a case listed before him when the petitioner appears as a counsel. The very fact that the learned Judge has not given out in writing that the cases of the "petitioner may not be listed before him, implies that be may hear him or may not hear him in a particular case. In effect, the petitioner wants us to issue a writ of mandamus to a Bench of coordinate jurisdiction commanding to disclose how he-is going to exercise his discretion in cases, where the petitioner appears as a counsel, even though the disclosure is sought from the learned Judge through the Registry. This, we think, is impermissible. We cannot do a thing indirectly which we cannot do directly.

7. The wide powers conferred on the - Court, as held in case reported in A.I.R. 1989 S. C. 1607 do not take within their ambit the power of a Bench of the High Court to issue a writ on another Bench of coordinate jurisdiction of the same High Court. Several Benches constitute the High Court and it is not permissible for one Bench to issue writs as against that other B