The Chief Justice holds exclusive administrative control over case allocation in the High Court, and any judicial actions taken without adherence to this authority are invalid.

JUDGMENT

Code of Criminal Proceduren -- Section 438, 439

Cases Referred:

State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand and Others, (1998) 1 SCC 1

ORDER

These cases listed in the cause list are not in accordance with roster laid down by the present Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The roster assigned to this Court is "SB CRIMINAL BAILS U/S 438 AND 439 CR.P.C., REGISTERED FROM JULY 2021 ONWARDS. SB CRIMINAL APPEALS U/S 14A SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 RELATED TO BAILS, ALL SB MATTERS PERTAINING TO PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, WHERE PROSECUTION SANCTION HAS BEEN CHALLENGED." However, criminal leave to appeals have been listed which are not pertaining to Prevention of Corruption Act.

In view thereof, any order passed by this Court would be without jurisdiction. It was informed on administrative side that the then Hon'ble the Chief Justice had directed to list Criminal Leave to Appeals on the last working day of each month at Jodhpur. However, the present Hon'ble the Chief Justice, who has assigned the roster in supersession of earlier orders, has not passed any such orders and therefore, this Court would be unable to pass any orders on the Criminal Leave to Appeals listed by the Registry without the permission and sanction of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. In State of Rajasthan Versus Prakash Chand and Others reported in (1998) 1 SCC 1, the Supreme Court has observed as under:-

"59. From the preceding discussion the following broad CONCLUSIONS emerge. This, of course, is not to be treated as a summary of our judgment and the conclusions should be read with the text of the judgment:

(1) That the administrative control of the High Court vests in the Chief Justice alone. On the judicial side, however, he is only the first amongst the equals.

(2) That the Chief Justice is the master of the roster. He alone has the prerogative to constitute benches of the court and allocated cases to the benches so constituted.

(3) That the puisne Judges can only do that work as is allotted to them by the Chief Justice or under his directions.

(4) That till any determination made by the Chief Justice lasts, no Judge who is to sit singly can sit in a Division Bench and no Division Bench can be split up by the Judges constituting the bench can be split up by the Judges constituting the bench themselves and one or both the Judges constituting such bench sit singly and take up any other kind of judicial business not otherwise assigned to them by or under the directions of the Chief Justice.

(5) That the Chief Justice can take cognizance of an application laid before him under Rule 55 (supra) and refer a case to the larger bench for its disposal and he can exercise this jurisdiction even in relation to a part-heard case.

(6) That the puisne Judges cannot "pick and choose" any case pending in the High Court and assign the same to himself or themselves for disposal without appropriate orders of the Chief Justice.

(7) That no Judge or Judges can give directions to the Registry for listing any case before him or them which runs counter to the directions given by the Chief Justice."

Similar view has been followed subsequently by Supreme Court in Shanti Bhushan v. Supreme Court of India through its Registrar & another reported in (2018) 8 SCC 1

In view of above this Court deems it appropriate to let the matters be listed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on administrative side before any judicial order is passed on any of the appeals.

A copy of this order be placed in each file.