IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that strict adherence to the roster system for case listing is essential to maintain judicial order and efficiency, and any failure to comply may result in disciplinary action against court officials.

JUDGMENT :

A.J. Desai, C.J.

The challenge in this appeal is an interim order dated 12.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C)Nos.15512 and 1717 of 2023.

2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants states that the above referred writ petitions along with two other writ petitions, i.e. W.P.(C)Nos.13114 of 2020 and 11556 of 2023, were listed before the Single Judge on 05.04.2024 and on that date, the learned Single Judge directed all the matters to be listed for hearing before the appropriate bench as per the roster. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that, in spite of the direction to post the matters as per roster, two out of the four writ petitions, i.e. W.P.(C)Nos.15512 and 1717 of 2023, were again listed on 11.04.2024 before the same Single Judge and those two matters were ordered to be listed on 12.04.2024 as part heard.

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that by impugned order dated 12.04.2024, certain directions were issued and the writ petitions posted on 31.05.2024. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have adhered to the order dated 05.04.2024 by which all the matters were ordered to be listed before the appropriate bench as per the roster. He, therefore, submitted that it will be in the interest of justice to hear all the matters together, strictly as per the roster.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that if the matters are to be heard by the Judge holding roster, appropriate direction may be issued for expeditious disposal of all the writ petitions.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. We have also gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 05.04.2024 in all the four writ petitions, which reads thus:

“Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that these writ petitions are of not matters under the Right to Information Act but under Non trading companies Act and coordinate bench of this Court has already seized of the matter and listed for 21.5.2024. Post the matters before the appropriate bench as per the roster.”

6. In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge should have adhered to the order dated 05.04.2024, instead of treating only two matters as part heard while passing another order on 11.04.2024. We have also gone through the roster which was in effect from 23.03.2024. The learned Single Judge who passed the impugned order was heading a Division Bench at the relevant point of time. The roster makes it clear that, if for any reason, a Judge in the Division Bench has to sit single, he shall deal with those matters specified for such purpose in the roster itself. As per the roster, the learned Single Judge was supposed to deal with original petitions and writ petitions (civil) of the year 2014 only.

7. In view of the factual aspects discussed above, we allow this appeal and quash the orders dated 11.04.2024 and 12.04.2024 passed in W.P.(C)Nos.15512 and 1717 of 2023.

8. It is hereby directed to place all the four writ petitions (W.P. (C)Nos.13114 of 2020 and W.P.(C)Nos.15512, 1717 and 11556 of 2023) before the learned Single Judge, as per the current roster in force from 20.05.2024, in the week commencing from 27.05.2024. The learned Single Judge is requested to decide the above writ petitions at the earliest.

9. Apart from this aspect, the Office is duty bound to list matters before the concerned Judge strictly as per the roster, unless otherwise ordered by the Chief Justice. Any deviation from this direction, thereby causing difficulty to the Hon'ble Judges or Advocates appearing in the matter, will invite disciplinary action against the officials concerned.