Back
Rajasthan High Court, Full Bench
Shinghal, Joshi & Gupta, JJ.
Niranjan Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondents
F.B. Ref. No. 11 of 1974
Decided On : April 05, 1974
The Chief Justice has power"from time to time" to direct that any particular case or class of case may be heard by a Bench of two or more Judges even though it, may, ordinarily, fall to be heard by a Single Judge. It is well settled that the meaning of the words"from time to time" is that "after once acting the donee of the power may act again ; and either independently of, or by adding to, or taking from, or reversing altogether, his previous act".
Held = Apart from proviso (a) of R. 55, R. 61 of the Rules also provides that, save as otherwise provided, inter alia, by a general or special order of the Chief Justice, every case other than that mentioned in the preceding rules, shall be heard and disposed of by a Bench of two Judges. A case which would ordinarily be heard and disposed of by a Judge sitting alone will therefore be heard by a Division Bench if the Chief Justice so directs.
Held = There is nothing in the rule to justify the argument that such a case should always be trented as "tied up" with a Bench simply because it has once fixed the date of its hearing, or that with the exception of a case in which a Bench has directed the issue of notice to the opposite party or passed an ex parte order all other cases should be deemed to be part-heard. On the other hand, the use of the word "ordinarily" goes to show that if there are extra-ordinary reasons, even a part-heard case may not be laid before the same Bench for disposal. The second sentence of R. 166(1) of the Rules cannot justify the argument that only that case in which a Bench has merely directed notice to issue to the opposite party or passed an ex parte order shall not be deemed to be a case partly heard by such Bench while all other cases, including a case in which a date of hearing has been fixed by a Bench shall be deemed to be the part-heard case of that Bench and shall be tied up with it There is therefore nothing in R. 66(1) to justify the argument that a case in which a date of hearing has been fixed another Bench.
Held = It is therefore clear from an examination of all the relevant provisions of the Constitution, the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 and the Rules that there is no justification for the argument that the Chief Justice has no power to direct that a case or class of cases in which a date of hearing has been fixed by a Bench cannot be listed for hearing before another Bench.
Held = The question of seizure of a case by a particular Judge is, not of much importance in the case of a High Court. In a High Court, "seizure" can relate only to "possession" of the case, as it were, by a particular Bench, for purposes of hearing and disposal by a member or members of the Court, and no more. It has to be appreciated that, in its proper sense, "seizure" in respect of a case in a court of law is the initial step in a proceeding, and is essential to the existence of an action or the jurisdiction of the Court. Since the jurisdiction, for reasons already stated, vests in the High Court, by virtue of Art 225 of the Constitution, it is the High Court which is, in the true sense of the word, seized of a case. As has been shown, the Chief Justice cannot be deprived of his power to direct that a particular case or class of case shall be listed for hearing before another Bench merely because a date of hearing has been fixed by a Bench already.
Held = The view taken in Bherulals case regarding the provisions of rules 54 and 55 of the Rules is not correct. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 19 and 25 )
2. On July 4, 1973 Mr. R. N. Munshi filed an application (in writ petition No. 447 of 1973 and other connected petitions) under the first proviso to rule 55 of the Rules of the High Court of Rajasthan, 1952, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" read with sec 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application was addressed to the Honble the Chief Justice and it was prayed that, for the reasons mentioned in the application, all the connected cases may be ordered to heard by a Divisions Bench. Copies of the application were given to the other learned counsel. It came up for consideration before the Chief Justice on August 3, 1973. Mr. L. L. Sharma and Mr. S. M. Mehta appearing for a large number of petitioners had no objection to the hearing of the writ petitions by a Division Bench so long as that did not prejudice the application which they had made in the meantime, on July, 20, 1973, against Mr. R.N. Munshi and others for contempt of Court. Mr. M.M. Vyas and Mr. R.R. Vyas (who represented the petitioners in 8 out of 63 petitions) opposed the application on the ground that it was likely to create a bad precedent. The Chief Justice took the view that as the petitions affected the business interests of numerous private operators as well as the Rajasthan State Roadways Corporation which had purchased a number of vehicles already, the interests of justice required that, having regard to the stakes involved and the urgency of the matter, all the petitions should be heard by a Division Bench. In the meantime, Jain J., had adjourned the hearing of petitions. The petitions were thus heard by the Division Bench and were dismissed on November 16, 1973. The propriety of the aforesaid order of the Honble Chief Justice dated August 3, 1973 was not the subject-matter of any controversy at all, in those petitions.
3. The application which was made on July 20, 1973 for taking action against Mr. R.N. Munshi and others for contempt of court came up for consideration before the same Division Bench on January 8, 1974. In deciding it the same day, their Lordships observed as follows:—
"According to R. 54 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, it is the privilege of Honble the Chief Justice to constitute Single or Division Benches from time to time and to allot business (cases) to them and the Judges of the Court shall sit to hear cases according to the arrangement made by Honble the Chief Justice. R. 55 provides for the type of cases that shall ordinarily be heard and disposed of by a Judge sitting singly. The writ petitions that Jain J. was hearing were covered by R. 55 of the Rules.
In our humble view, once a case goes before a Bench according to the allotment of business made by Honble the Chief Justice and thereafter the Bench is seized of the case then, we are afraid, the Honble the Chief Justice has no power to withdraw that case from that case. Bench and to allot it to another Bench. It will be for that Bench who is seized of the c
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
