1986 Supreme(Raj) 163

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
N.M. Kasliwal, S.C. Agarwal & V.S. Dave, JJ.
Ganga Sahai - Appellant
Versus
Suraj Prasad - Respondents
Civil Second Appeal No. 220 of 1973
Decided On : July 15, 1986

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India—Art-226—Writ of Mandamus—Requisites for issuance of writ.(b) Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952—R. 54—Direction in the nature of Mandamus cannot be given by a Judge while deciding the restoration application in a civil proceedings.(c) Rajasthan High Court Rules—R. 54—Appropriate orders—Receipt of corns, munication making complaint about any grievance and seeking redress—To grant relief by issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction under Art. 226—Learned Judge should forward the same to Registrar for necessary action and not pass orders on it.(d) Rajasthan High Court-Rules, 1952 — R. 54 — Rule of procedure — Departure therefrom not permissible.(e) Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 R. 54—Direction of a Court—Court while dealing a civil case cannot give a direction in the nature of direction which has nothing to do with merit or controversy of that case ~ Direction can he given only relating to matter in issue or controversy involved between parties in that particular case.(f) Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952—R. 54—General directions regarding observance of Rules given by a Judge while dealing with a civil matter —Not permissible.

       It is thus evident that the Rules postulate that in order that this Court may issue a direction, order or writ under Article 226 of the Constitution other than a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus it is necessary that an application, accompanied by an affidavit verifying the facts relied upon should be duly presented and the said application has to be placed before the Judge who is dealing with such petitions under the order passed by the Chief Justice under Rule 54 and that Judge only can issue such a writ, direction or order. (Para 12)

       There is a procedural difficulty in the matter of issuing a writ of mandamus in a pending proceeding because a proceeding for issuance of a writ of mandamus is an independent proceeding which can be initiated by moving an application in accordance with Rule 375 of the Rules and the said application must be accompanied by an affidavit verifying the facts relied upon. An other procedural difficulty in the matter of issuance of a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus by a learned Judge in a pending proceeding is that under Rule 54 of the Rules the Chief Justice has the power to allot particular types of case to a particular Judge or Judges and in exercise of the said power, the Chief Justice may allot petitions for issuance of writ under Article 226 to particular Judge or Judges. In that event the learned Judge dealing with the pending civil matter by issuing a direction in the nature of mandamus in that matter would be exercising a jurisdiction which has not been allot ltd to him by the Chief Justice under Rule 54 of the Rule. In our opinion, therefore, for a proper and harmonious functioning of the Court in accordance with the Rules, it is necessary that a Judge should refrain from excrcising jurisdiction in respect of matters not allotted to him by the Chief Justice under Rule 54 of the Rules and exercise of jurisdiction by a Judge under Article 22ft in a pending civil matter may result in disregard of the provisions of Rule 54 of the Rules. A direction in the nature of mandamus cannot be given by a learned Judge of this Court while dealing wish a pending civil proceeding. A direction in the nature of mandamus cannot be given while deciding the restoration application. (Paras 14, 21 & 25)

       In case a learned Judge receives a communication making complaint about any grievance and seeking redress by way of relief by issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 22 of the Constitution, the learned Judge may forward to the same to the Registrar or Addl. Registrar with direction to immediately place it before the Judge who is dealing with petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution and she learned Judge who is dealing with such petitions, may after examining the said communication, pass appropriate orders on the same. Such a course would also be in consonance with Rule 54 of the Rules which empowers the Chief Justice to allot the work amongst various Judges of the Court. (Para 19)

       The considerations which justify departure from the rules of procedure in respect of public interest litigation, would not be applicable to proceedings between two private individual relatings to an individual grievance. The departure from the rules of procedure in such a proceedings would, therefore, not be permissible and in case a party to such a proceeding is desirous that an order of direction in the nature of mandamus may be issued to a third person, he should move the required application for that purpose in accordance with the Rules and the learned Judge dealing with the pending civil proceeding, would not be justified in issuing a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus in such a pending proceeding. (Para 20)