( 1 ) THIS appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises out of special Civil Application No. 7300 of 1992 which was filed by the appellant who claimed to be a public spirited citizen interested in purity of administration of justice and a prayer was made that the order dated October 9, 1992 promoting respondent No. 7 from the post of Asstt. District Judge to the post of Joint District judge be quashed and set aside as being bad in law, illegal, arbitrary, suffering from the vice of favouritism, unconstitutional and in violation of Art. 233 read with Art. 216 and Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. A notice was issued on the petition to respondent No. 6, Registrar of High Court and affidavit-in-reply and further affidavits by the petitioner were filed. The petition was also amended by adding paras 6 (A), (B) and (C) and adding prayers (AA) and (CC ). Ultimately, the learned single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner had no locus standi.

( 2 ) AN objection has been taken to the constitution of this Special Bench for hearing of this Letters Patent Appeal, by filing an additional affidavit. Ordinarily, letters Patent Appeals are heard by the first Court consisting of the learned chief Justice and another learned Judge. However, since the learned Chief Justice has been made a respondent in this proceeding, he has appropriately and fairly decided not to hear the matter, but in that case, the matter had to be assigned to some other Bench. Since the petitioner had joined five senior learned Judges of this court as respondents, the matter has been assigned to this Bench wherein one of us happens to be the senior most of the remaining learned Judges of this Court. It is not understood as to what objection can be taken for the constitution of such a Bench. It is only the learned Chief Justice who has power to constitute a Bench and, therefore, this objection of the petitioner has no merit. In fact, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that he has personally no objection for hearing of the matter by this Bench.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is the secretary of Council for Social Justice. However, no particulars whatsoever have been given. It is not known as to what this Council for Social Justice is; what is its constitution, who are its members and since when it is in existence; what activities have been done by that Council and social actions or public activities which are carried on by the appellant or that Council. It is also not stated as to what is the social, public and educational standing of the appellant.

( 4 ) IN the affidavit-in-reply, the appellants locus standi has been seriously challenged and in para 3 of the reply, it is submitted that the petitioner (appellant) in a most vindictive manner and with utmost mala fide obviously at the dictates of some hostile elements had picked and chosen respondent No. 7 alone. This would indicate lack of bona fide on the part of the appeallant-petitioner because the order by which the respondent No. 7 was promoted, two other Assistant district Judges including one who was even junior to respondent No. 7 were also promoted, but their promotions had not been challenged. It is only at a later stage that by an amendment, their promotions were challenged. In the rejoinder, the appellant had denied the allegation of having acted in a vindictive manner or with utmost mala fide or at the dictate of someone. However, it is not possible to accept the word of the appellant having regard to the total lack of his interest and standing in the matter. On the so-called issue of public interest and importance, curiously only the appellant has come up who has not shown anything significant of his standing or his background or his interest even by way of public interest in this matter.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on a judgment of the supreme Court in the case of S. P.