The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of judicial discipline and adherence to the procedure for maintaining proper functioning of the Court, emphasizing the administrative control of the High Court vested in the Chief Justice and the power of the Chief Justice to distribute business of the High Court.

SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, C. J.

( 1 ) WE have heard Sri Ashwani Kumar for the appellant and Sri B. N. Misra, learned standing counsel for the State.

( 2 ) IN the instant special appeal, the appellant has challenged the jurisdiction of the learned single judge to take up the matter and pass order dismissing his writ petition. It has been submitted by sri Ashwani Kumar, learned advocate for the appellant that the order was passed on 11th october, 2000, when the learned single Judge was taking up service writs relating to cooperative societies and matter for orders, admission and hearing.

( 3 ) THE appellant was working as a driver in the office of Assistant Sugar Commissioner, respondent No. 4 who admittedly was not working with the cooperative societies. It is well-settled that the Chief Justice alone has power to confer jurisdiction on the Judges as to what matter a Judge shall take up. In this connection Mr. Ashwani Kumar has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand and others, AIR 1998 SC 1344. The relevant portion of the said judgment is set out hereinbelow :

"15. A careful reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Ordinance and Rule 54 (supra) shows that the administrative control of the High Court vests in the Chief Justice of the High Court alone and that it is his prerogative to distribute business of the High Court both judicial and administrative. He alone, has the right and power to decide how the Benches of the High Court are to be constituted; which Judge is to sit alone and which cases he can and is required to hear as also as to which Judges shall constitute a Division Bench and what work those Benches shall do. In other words the Judges of the High Court can sit alone or in Division Benches and do such work only as may be allotted to them by an order of or in accordance with the directions of the chief Justice. That necessarily means that it is not within the competence or domain of any single or Division Bench of the Court to give any direction to the registry in that behalf which will run contrary to the directions of the Chief Justice. Therefore in the scheme of things judicial discipline demands that in the event a single Judge or a Division Bench considers that a particular case requires to be listed before it for valid reasons, it should direct the registry to obtain appropriate orders from the Chief Justice. The puisne Judges are not expected to entertain any request from the advocates of the parties for listing of case which does not strictly fall within the determined roster. In such cases, it is appropriate to direct the counsel to make a mention before the Chief Justice and obtain appropriate order. This is essential for smooth functioning of the Court. Though, on the judicial side the Chief Justice is only the first amongst the equals, on the administrative side in the matter of constitution of Benches and making of roster he alone is vested with the necessary powers. That the power to make roster exclusively vests in the Chief justice and that a dally cause list is to be prepared under the directions of the Chief Justice as is borne out from Rule 73, which reads thus : rule 73. Daily Cause List.--The Registrar shall subject to such directions as the Chief Justice may give from time to time cause to be prepared for each day on which the Court sits, a list of cases which may be heard by the different Benches of the Court. The list shall also state the hour at which and the room in which each Bench shall sit. Such list shall be known as the Days List. "

16. This is the consistent view taken by some of the High Courts and this Court which appears to have escaped the attention of Shethna, J. , in the present case, when he directed the listing of certain part-heard cases before him as a single Judge by providing a separate board for the purpose, while sitting in a Division Bench. "

( 4 ) A Division Bench of this Court in State v. Devi Dayal AIR 1959 All 421, considered th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document