SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, C. J.

( 1 ) HEARD Mr. V. B. Upadhyaya, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. V. K. Upadhyaya, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. D. K. Tiwari and Pankaj Srivastava, learned advocates for the respondent.

( 2 ) THIS special appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned single Judge on 26th march, 2001, whereby the learned single Judge entertained an application filed by the respondent writ petitioner under Article 215 of the Constitution of India on the allegation that the order passed by the learned single Judge on 15th March. 2001, has not been complied with by the appellants. By the said order, the learned single Judge has permitted to add the present appellants as respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the application under Article 215 of the Constitution. The learned single Judge also directed notice to be issued to the said respondents appellants herein directing them to appear personally before the Court.

( 3 ) MR. V. B. Upadhyaya, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. V. K. Upadhyaya, learned advocate for the appellants have submitted before us that the learned single Judge had no jurisdiction to pass such an order under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Upadhyaya has further submitted that the learned Judge, who has been assigned the determination in respect of matters relating to contempt, is only competent to exercise such jurisdiction. The learned judge at the material time not having conferred with such determination by the Chief Justice, has exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the order on the application under Article 215 of the constitution in respect of matters relating to contempt and by directing issuance of notice to respondents therein. He has further submitted that contempt in respect of High Court means the contempt of the entire composite High Court comprising of the Chief Justice and all other Judges of the High Court under Article 216 of the Constitution of India. It Is the Chief Justice alone who has the power to determine as to who shall take up which matter, who will comprise the Division bench and who shall sit singly. It has further been submitted by Mr. V. B. Upadhyaya, that the order passed by the learned Judge on 26th March, 2001, in exercise of jurisdiction of contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution is without jurisdiction. He has further submitted that it is the totality of Judges including the Chief Justice, which constitute High Court under Article 216 of the Constitution and not a particular Judge alone. The power to punish for contempt has been conferred upon every High Court comprising of the Chief Justice and all the Judges taken together and not on one single Judge alone. Mr. Upadhyaya has further submitted that it is for proper and convenient administration of Justice that the Chief Justice has been conferred the power under the Constitution for making determination and assigning matters to the Judges and the Chief Justice having the sole power for the purpose of allotment of work to the Judges, no judge can sit and take matters according to his own desire. In support of his contention. Mr. Upadhyaya cited the following decisions :

(1) State v. Deni Dayal, AIR 1959 An 421. (2) Sohan Lal Baid v. State of West Bengal and others, AIR 1990 Cal 168. (3) Raj Kishore Yadav v. Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bamrauli, 1997 (1) UPLBEC 26. (4) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad v. Raj Kishore Yadav and others. 1997 (3) SCC 11. (5) State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand and others, 1998 (1) SCC 1. (6) Dr. L. P. Misra v. State of U. P. . 1998 (7) SCC 379.

( 4 ) SRI Pankaj Srivastava and Sri D. K. Tiwari, learned advocates for the respondent-writ petitioner submitted that jurisdiction of the High Court to initiate proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution of India cannot be taken away by any statutory provision or any other iaw including the Allahabad High Court Rules. They have further submitted that no rule or procedure has been framed by