JUDGMENT
R.B. Misra, J.
1. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel alongwith Mr. D. Senapati learned Counsel for the petitioner/applicant the Registrar (I & E) Gauhati High Court in Review Application No. 72/05 preferred in W.P.(C) 5416/05 and Mr. R.P. Sharma learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.M.T. Chestie for the writ petitioner and Mrs. M. Bora, learned Govt. Advocate for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.
2. Vide an administrative order dated 3.8.05 passed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice, the present review application has been nominated to be heard by this Bench.
3. It appears that the writ petition No. WP(C) 5416/05 (A. Borgohain @ A.B. Gohain v. State of Arunachal Pradesh) has been filed before this High Court (Principal Seat) Gauhati where in addition to the State of Arunachal Pradesh other respondents under the jurisdiction of State of Arunachal Pradesh, however were arrayed as parties/respondents, at the pleasure and permission of Hon’ble the Chief Justice, the writ petition was allowed to be heard before the Principal Seat of High Court.
4. This Court (Hon’ble B.K. Sharma, J) after hearing the above writ petition has been pleased to pass an order on 29.7.2005 which reads as follows:
Transmit the case records to Itanagar Bench to be listed on 8.8.05. Till then status quo as on to day shall be maintained.
5. In reference to the above order the review petition has been preferred by Registrar (I&E) Gauhati High Court on the ground that the said order has been passed in derogation to the Presidential order/notification No. K.11018/6/95. USI Dated 18.7.2000 “(Appendix-19) of Gauhati High Court Rules in reference to (Establishment of a permanent Bench at Itanagar) Order 2000” as well as in derogation to the decision of this Court (Division Bench) in 2002 (3) GLT 701 : 2003 (1) Gauhati Law Journal 106 (State of Manipur and Ors. v. L. Shyamsunder. It has been argued on behalf of the applicant/petitioner in review petition that the order dated 29.7.05 in question, could be reviewed in view of the provisions of the Gauhati High Court Rules as well as in the light of the provisions of Order 47 RuleNos. (of CPC. It has been argued that the High Court has inherent power to review its order dated 29.7.05 under Article 226 of the constitution, in view of the decision (Constitution Bench) of Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1963 SC 1909 (Shivdeo Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.) According to Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior Advocate in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in (Pohla Singh @ Pohla Ram (D) by Lrs. and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.), the order dated 29.7.05 has been passed without taking into consideration the interest and stand of the High Court of Gauhati and the same has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the High Court on its administrative side, therefore, such order could be reviewed.
6. In view of the above submissions and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the notice is issued in the review petition which is being accepted by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner. On acceptance such notice no formal notice need be issued as the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner is appearing before this Court.
7. To deal with the present case/review petition, it is necessary to refer Order 47 RuleNos. (of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which provides as below:
Order 47 Rule. 1. Application for review of judgment–(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved–
(a) By a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred.
(b) By a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) By a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.
(Explanation–The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.)
8. Para 2 of Presidential order dated 18.7.2000 provides as below:
There shall be established a permanent Bench of the Gauhati High Court at Itanagar and such Judges of the Gauhati High Court being not less than one in number, as the Chief Justice of that High Court may, from time to time nominate, shall sit at Itanagar in order to exercise the jurisdiction and powers for the time being vested in the Gauhati High Court in respect of cases arising in the State of Arunachal Pradesh:
Provided that the Chief Justice of that High Court may, in his discretion, order that any case or class of cases arising in the State of Arunachal Pradesh shall be heard at Gauhati.
9. In Shivdeo Singh (supra) it was held by the Supreme Court that the second writ petition by ‘B’ was maintainable and the High Court had not acted without jurisdiction in reviewing its previous order (in writ petition of ‘A’) at the instance of ‘B’ who was not a party to the previous writ proceedings. There is nothing in Art. 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. In entertaining B ‘s petition the High Court thereby did what the principles of natural justice required it to do.
10. In (Pohla Singh @ Pohla Ram (D) By Lrs. v. State of Punjab and Ors.), the Supreme Court following its earlier decision in Shivdeo Singh (supra) has held that if a decision rendered in a writ petition adversely affects the interest of a third person who was not impleaded as a party in the writ petition, it is always open to him to ask for recall of the judgment which has been rendered without affording any opportunity of hearing to him.
11. In L. Shyamsunder (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has referred and relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in (1998)Nos. (SCCNos. ((State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand and Ors.) and has noted as below:
Para 3: While on the judicial side the Chief Justice of the High Court is only the first amongst the equals, the administrative control of the High Court vests in the Chief Justice of the High Court alone and it is his prerogative to distribute business of the High Court both judicial and administrative.
The Chief Justice is the master of the roster. He alone has the right and power to decide how the Benches of 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 which Judges shall constitute a Division Bench and what work those Benches shall do. The Puisne Judges can only do that work which is allotted to them by the Chief Justice or under his directions. No Judge or a Bench of Judges can assume jurisdiction in a case pending in the High Court unless the case is allotted to him or them by the chief justice. Strict adherence of this procedure is essential for maintaining judicial discipline and proper functioning of the High Court. No departure from it can be permitted.
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 Judge are not expected to entertain any request from the Advocates for 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 orders. This is essential for smooth functioning of the High Court.
The Puisne Judge 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. 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.
12. The Hon’ble Chief Justice has an exclusive power regarding constituting the Benches. Single Judge has no power to direct the Registry for transferring a case from Principal Seat of High Court to any Permanent Bench or from Principal Seat of High Court to another Permanent Bench of State or from one Permanent Bench to another Permanent Bench of a State. If such order is made the same shall be illegal and is liable to be set aside. It is a prerogative of the Chief Justice, to distribute the business of the High Court both on judicial as well as on administrative side. Therefore the order dated 29.7.2005 of this High Court transmitting the case and records of the petition from Principal Seat of High Court, Gauhati to another Principal Bench of High Court at Itanagar is erroneous and illegal.
13. In view of the forgoing analysis it is apparent that sufficient materials are available in reference to Order 47 RuleNos. (of CPC and therefore, the review petition is liable to be allowed.
14. In the facts and circumstances, the present review petition is allowed and the order dated 29.7.05 is partly modified to the extent that the writ petition No. 5416/05 alongwith the records shall not be transmitted for being listed on 8.8.05 to the Permanent Bench of High Court, Gauhati at Itanagar. However, till 31.8.2005, the impugned order dated 20.6.05 (Annexure-4) of main writ petition shall remain suspended so far the petitioner is concerned.
15. Parties are at liberty to file additional documents if so advised. Copy of the order be given to the learned Counsel for the parties within three days.
16. The present review petition along with wilt petition No. 5416/2005 is to be listed for further hearing on 31.8.2005. Liberty is given to the parties to mention before Hon’ble the Chief Justice or appropriate Court.