Markandeya Katju, C.J.

1. LP A No. 2503/2005 arises out of an Interlocutory Order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 20.10.2005 in WP No. 7123/2005.

2. Since we felt that the matter is urgent we were of the opinion that instead of deciding LP A No. 2503/2005, which arises out of an interim order, the Writ Petition No. 7123/2005 itself should be disposed off finally by a Division Bench. Hence on 05".12.2005 we passed the following order in LPA No. 2503/2005.

"This Writ Appeal has been filed against an interlocutory order of the learned Single Judge dated 22nd October, 2005. The Writ Petition is still pending before the learned Single Judge.

We are of the opinion that instead of deciding the writ Appeal, the writ Petition itself should be disposed of by a Division Bench so that the matter is decided one way or the other expeditiously.

The dispute is regarding the claim of the writ petitioner to set up a sugar mill. In our opinion, this is a matter which should not be prolonged, rather it should be decided expeditiously one way or the other.

Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that if a Division Bench decides the writ petition, his client will be deprived of one right of appeal. In our opinion, there is no merit in this submission.

It is always open to the Chief Justice to direct that a case, which is" normally heard by a Single Judge, be heard by a Division Bench. There is no absolute right in anyone to have an appeal from a Single Judge of this Court to a Division Bench of the Court. The Chief Justice is the master of the roster and there is always a right to approach the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. We have to see the facts of each particular case and it is not that in every case a litigant must have a right to be heard before a Single Judge and thus delay the proceedings, particularly in a case where the interest of justice requires speedy decision by the High Court. We fail to understand what serious objection the learned counsel for the Respondent can have to the expeditions disposal of the writ petition. If his logic is accepted then in cases where writ petitions are listed before a Division Bench there is injustice to a party because he is deprived of the right of an appeal from a Single Judge to a Division bench. We are of the opinion that there is no such absolute right and it is the prerogative of the Chief Justice to direct a case which is ordinarily cognizable by a Single Judge to be listed before a Division Bench or vice versa, unless some statute provides otherwise. In view of the above, list the writ petition and this LPA on 9th December, 2005, the date agreed by learned counsels before us. Parties may exchange affidavits in the meantime. It is made clear that the case will be heard and disposed of on that date. Registry to ensure that the writ record is sent to the Court on the next date of hearing."

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Writ Petition No. 7123/05 was filed by M/s Ojas Industries Pvt. Ltd., which is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The prayers in the Writ Petition were as follows:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the case and to quash the Acknowledgement of Industrial Entrepreneurs Memorandum No. 1699/SIA/IMO/2004 dated 17.05.2004 issued to m/s Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd., the Respondent No.7 for establishment of new sugar undertaking at village Saidpur Khurd, Lakhimpur Kheri(UP).

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No. 1 and 2 revoke/cancel the Acknowledgement No. 1699/SIA/IMO/2004dated 17.05.2004 the IEM of M/s Oudh Sugar Mills Limited, Respondent No.7 for establishment of new sugar undertaking at village Saidpur Khurd, Distt. Lakhimpur Kheri (UP).

(iii) issue a writ, order or• direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, (UP) and District Ma