The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of S.3 of the Kerala High Court Act and the procedure for adjourning a matter to be heard by a Division Bench.

1. This writ petition has been placed before us with the following order of the Chief Justice, apparently made in exercise of power under S.6 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958:

"There is an apparent conflict between the views expressed by two Division Benches' of this Court with respect to the procedure to be followed by a Single Judge while adjourning a matter to be heard and determined by a Bench of two judges under S.3 or the High Court Act. The question of law involved in the writ petition also is very important. I, therefore, order that the writ petition as well as the order of reference be posted for hearing before a Full Bench of five judges."

We have heard counsel on the conflicting views about the scope of S.3, and this order is intended to dispose of the said controversy. The merits of the Original Petition will be considered separately.

2. S.3 of the Kerala High Court Act empowers a Single Judge to exercise the Court's powers under Art.226(1) of the Constitution, but the Section also contains a proviso in the following terms:

"Provided that the judge before whom the matter is posted for hearing may adjourn it for being heard and determined by a Bench of two judges."

The aforesaid provision has been construed by one Division Bench (See 1985 KLT 738) to mean that a Single Judge cannot adjourn a matter for being heard by two judges except by means of a judicial order signed by the judge himself An oral direction, recorded by the Court Officer by way of an endorsement on the docket, will not be sufficient, according to this view. This is what the bench said:

"The endorsement merely shows that an oral direction to that effect had been given by the learned Single Judge. No such oral direction, or an endorsement of the Court Officer evidencing it, constitutes an order of reference under S.3. What is postulated under that Section is a judicial order which has to be in writing and signed by the Single Judge himself. Although as a Division Bench we have the power to hear and determine the Original Petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution, being one of the matters specified under S.3, such petition must be brought to us by means of a judicial order signed by the judge himself as postulated under S.3. This matter has not been so brought to us. Accordingly, place the Original Petition before the learned Single Judge for appropriate orders."

3. The view taken by the other Division Bench is that there is nothing in the language of S.3 to indicate that there should be an order in writing, that such an order should be a judicial one and that it should be signed by the judge concerned. After referring to the practice of the Court where Division Benches have been acting on the strength of similar endorsements made on dockets, the learned judges of the Bench also raised the question whether

"it is open to a Division Bench empowered to dispose of the matter under S.4 of the High Court Act, to refer the case back to the Single Judge who had adjourned the case"

4. S 9 of the Kerala High Court Act repeals only those provisions of the T.C High Court Act, 1125 which relate to matters covered by the former. Many of the provisions of the T.C.Act are thus still in tact, and operative. It is therefore necessary to notice that under S.16 of that Act, the administrative control of the High Court is vested in the Chief Justice and that under S.30, it is in his power to "regulate the conduct of the business in the High Court."

5. As for S.3 of the Kerala Act, the first thing to be noticed is that it makes no mention of an'order of reference', in writing or otherwise. The words "refer", "order", "signed" etc. are significantly absent. Literally construed, the requirements of the proviso will be satisfied if a Single Judge before whom a writ petition comes up for hearing orally directs that the matter be adjourned for being heard and determined by a bench of two Judges. He is not required to give reasons or record them. In fact, he is no