The Chief Justice has inherent authority to assign cases, and any adjudication made without such assignment is void; however, a Division Bench retains jurisdiction if generally authorized to hear any matter.

JUDGMENT :

Madhuresh Prasad, J.

1. The respondents above named are the applicants in CAN 4 of 2025. Prayer in the application is for recall for an order dated 02.01.2024 passed in IA No. CAN 1 of 2023 in MAT 2357 of 2023. The learned Senior Advocate for the applicant Mr. Ali appeared on behalf of the applicant.

2. It is submitted by Mr. Ali that the application (CAN 1 of 2023) was initially listed before a co-ordinate Bench on 11.12.2023 having determination to take up mandamus/ writ appeal and applications. Since the present appeal is a mandamus appeal and CAN 1 of 2023 was an application in a mandamus appeal, the co-ordinate Bench had the determination to take up the writ appeal including application/s irrespective of classification. However, the Bench was pleased to release the matter on 11.12.2023, due to lack of determination. In support of his submission that the co-ordinate Bench dealing with the matter had the determination, he has annexed a copy of the daily cause list dated 11.12.2023. He submitted that when the co-ordinate Bench released the matter, then as per normal procedure an order of assignment was required to be issued Justice for listing of the matter before a Bench. by the Hon’ble the Chief

3. The matter thereafter appeared in the cause list of the Division Bench presided over by the Chief Justice (hereinafter referred to as DB-I) on 02.01.2024. AHftoenr’ bhleea trhineg the parties, DB-I passed an order dated 02.01.2024 staying the order dated 22.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge.

4. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate that listing of the matter before the DB-I was without any order of assignment by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Even though the Hon’ble the Chief Justice is the master of roster, nonetheless an assignment was required to be notified before the matter could have been taken up by any Bench, including DB-I, being presided by the Chief Justice. There being no such assignment or direction for listing of the matter before DB-I, hearing of the writ/ mandamus appeal and application, by DB-I, and the order dated 02.01.2024 passed thereon is a nullity and void.

5. He submits that the High Court is a Court of record and interest of justice demands that the order dated 02.01.2024 passed in CAN 1 of 2023 by DB-I, being without jurisdiction, and a nullity in the eyes of law, may not be allowed to continue in the records. Therefore, the application for recall of the order dated 02.01.2024 is fit to be allowed, and appropriate orders may be passed for recalling the order dated 02.01.2024 in MAT 2357 of 2023 (subsequently numbered as FMA 133 of 2024) and I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2023, so as to render conscionable justice. Mr. Ali relied upon decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sohan Lal Baid vs. State of West Bengal and Others reported in AIR 1990 Cal 168 . He also relied upon decision of the Apex Court, in the case of Sushil Kumar Mehta vs. Gobind Ram Bohra (Dead) Through His LRS. reported in (1990) 1 SCC 193, Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2018) 1 SCC 196 and Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited vs. GRSE Limited Workmens union and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 582.

6. Referring to decision in the case of Sohan Lal Baid (supra) he submits that the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of High Court has the constitutional power to determine which Judge is to sit alone and which Judge/s to constitute the several Division Courts. The assignment of judicial business amongst judges, whether sitting singly or in Division Court, is entru