M. Ranka vs The Hon’Ble Chief Justice Of … on 29 November, 1993

0
63
Madras High Court
M. Ranka vs The Hon’Ble Chief Justice Of … on 29 November, 1993
Equivalent citations: (1994) 1 MLJ 349
Author: Srinivasan


ORDER

Srinivasan, J.

1. This matter has been posted before the Full Bench obviously because the connected matters namely, a contempt petition and a writ petition filed by this petitioner were referred to this Full Bench. This writ petition was presented on 28.9.1993. The first respondent is the Chief Justice of this Court, respondents 2 to 4 are judges of this Court, the 5th respondent is the Union of India, 6th respondent is the Indian Overseas Bank, and the 7th respondent is the Advocate-Commissioner R. Subburam. The prayers are as follows:

(A) the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, respondent No. 1 herein, in turn, to direct the Registry of this Hon’ble Court to forthwith number the contempt Petition under D. No. 14283/92; W.P.SR., No. 93969 of 1992, W.M.P.SR. No. 1205/93 in W.P.SR. No. 93969 of 1992 and place the papers before the respondent No. 1 herein.

(B) the respondent No. 1 herein to constitute an appropriate LARGER BENCH to expeditiously hear and decide the Contempt Petition, Writ and Writ Miscellaneous Petitions as referred in PRAYER (A);

(C) the respondent No. 1 herein to constitute a FULLBENCH to finally hear W.P. No. 1059 of 1982;

(D) the respondent No. 1 herein NOT to post any matter in future, in which the petitioner happens to appear as a counsel for any party to a proceeding, either under the Civil, Criminal or Writ Jurisdiction before respondent 2 or respondent No. 3 herein either single or in a Division Bench;

(E) the respondent No. 1 herein to constitute an appropriate Bench to finally hear and dispose of W.P. No. 11 167 of 1987;

(F) Respondent No. 3, 4, 6 and 7 herein to jointly and severally to pay the interest on Rs. 1,75,000 at 24% from 2.11.1991 to 25.12.1992;

(G) Respondent Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7 herein to pay adequate compensation to the auction purchaser for loss of profit sustained by him as a direct result of seizure and removal of the subject machine, on 25.2.1992 and 13.6.1992 respectively, by Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 from the premises of the auction-purchaser;

(H) GRANTING SUCH further or other equitable relief or reliefs to the petitioner herein, including one of cost throughout, and thus RENDER JUSTICE.

2. The first prayer relates to the Contempt petition and the Writ Petition which have been disposed of by us to-day by separate Judgments. Hence, prayers (A) and (B) have become infructuous. Prayers (C) and (E) relate to writ petitions filed by the petitioner herein. They have already been listed before this Full Bench. One of them has been partly heard. Hence, those prayers have become infructuous.

3. With reference to prayer (D), we have no hesitation to hold that it is not sustainable. It is not open to any party or counsel to choose his Judge. The petitioner is an advocate practising in this Court and he cannot claim that the matters in which he is appearing shall not be posted before respondents 2 and 3, who are Judges of this Court. A Full Bench of this Court has considered a similar question in Mayavaram Financial Corporation Ltd. Mayiladuthurai v. The Registrar of Chits, Pondicherry (1991) 2 L.W. 80. On this aspect of the matter, the Full Bench said:

Likewise, in a civil proceeding as well, no person can claim that his matter should be heard by a single Judge much less a particular Judge or a particular Division Bench of the Court. The business of the court will be determined by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice alone, who in his discretion may decide what judge is to sit alone and what Judges are to constitute different benches and allotted business of the court. The Letters Patent aforequoted recognises this power of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the court and as held by the Supreme Court, even in the absence of a specific provision, this is an inherent power of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice.

We are entirely in agreement with the above statement of law.

4. The petitioner himself filed a similar writ petition in W.P. No. 18704 of 1990 against the Chief Justice of this Court, two puisne Judges and the Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. The main prayer was to issue a mandamus directing the Chief Justice not to post any of the matters in which the petitioner appears as a counsel or party in person before respondents 2 and 3 therein, either in a Bench or sitting single. That writ petition was dismissed by one of us (Bakthavatsalam, J.) on 20.12.1990. The Judgment is reported in M. Ranka v. Honourable Chief Justice of Tamil Nadu High Court Madras and Ors. (1991) 2 L.W. 98. However, it was observed in that Judgment that it was open to the petitioner to approach the Chief Justice and make a request that his case may not be heard by a particular Bench. Reliance was placed on a judgment of Ramalingam, J. In W.P.SR. No. 60737 of 1990 dated 12.9.1990 in which the same view was expressed. The petitioner preferred an appeal in W.A. No. 17 of 1991, which was heard by a Division Bench. The appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench by its Judgment dated 13th March 1991 which is reported in (1991) 2 L.W. 225. While upholding the Judgment of the single Judge that the writ petition was not maintainable, the Division Bench differed from the view expressed by the single Judge that it was open to the petitioner to request the Chief Justice not to post the matter before a particular Bench. In the judgment, the Division Bench quoted the passage extracted above from the judgment of the Full Bench in the Mayavaram Financial Corporation case (1991) 2 L.W. 80. The Division Bench proceeded to hold that the Chief Justice has no jurisdiction to transfer a case which is already before a Bench or a learned Judge of the court. The relevant passage in the Judgment reads thus:

With respect we disagree with the last observation of S. Ramalingam, J. that a party or a counsel may make a special mention before the Chief Justice so that the case pending before one Bench may be posted before another Bench. So far as other two observations are concerned, we think it right to say that if for some reasons, the learned Judges assigned with a case or cases, find that they should not hear the case or the cases, they may direct the papers to be placed before the Chief Justice for posting such case or cases before some other Bench and in some extraordinary circumstances, the counsel appearing in a case may make a special request that a particular case or cases may not be heard by a particular Bench for reasons none other than the reasons that are spelt out in the principles that no one shall be a judge in his own cause (Nemo debet casa judose propria cause). So far as the first rule is concerned, if the Judge himself or the Judges themselves say that a particular case or cases assigned to him/them say be taken out of his/their list, there should be no difficulty. So far as the second rule is concerned in which it is said that a counsel may bring to the notice of the court that a particular case or cases may not be heard by a particular Bench or a Judge of the court means to say only that the counsel would being a fact to the notice of the court and no more. He cannot be allowed to insist or ask this Court not to hear a case. It will be again for the Judge or the Judges hearing the case to decide whether they should say that the cases be listed before another Judge or Bench or not. Judges of the court including the Chief Justice are equals and exercise the same judicial power except such powers that are specifically assigned to the Chief Justice. There is no reason to concede a power in the Chief Justice to transfer a case from one Bench to another Bench of the Court or from one Judge to another Judge of the Court. Act of allocating business or portfolio or assigning case or cases is different from the act of recalling the case from the file of a particular Judge or a Bench of the court and from transferring a case from the file of a particular Judge or a Bench of the court and from transferring a case from the file of a particular Judge or a Bench of the court, to another Judge or a Bench of the court because any decision about it would partake the character of a judicial order.

5. A Division Bench of the Nagpur High court has occasion to consider the same question in Zikar v. M.P. State Government A.I.R. 1951 Nag. 11. It was held that there is no power in the Chief Justice of a High Court under the Constitution or the Letters Patent or the Rules of the High Court or Section 108(2), Government of India Act, 1915 to withdraw or transfer a case which a Divisional court is in seisin. It was also held that a litigant’s right is only to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court and not to have his case decided by any particular Judge of Judges and that the matter is entirely one of internal arrangement of the High Court with which the litigant has no concern. With respect we agree with the propositions laid down in the above cases and hold that it is not open to the party or a counsel to pray that his cases should not be posted before a particular Judge or Division Bench. The petitioner argued vehemently that the ruling of the Division Bench in M. Ranka v. Hon’ble the Chief Justice of Tamil Nadu (1991) 2 L.W. 225 is erroneous and per incuriam. According to him, it is not open to a Division Bench to overrule the views expressed by two single Judges sitting separately and it ought to have referred the matter to a larger Bench. There is no substance in the contentions and we are unable to accept the same.

6. With reference to prayers (F) and (G) the petitioner has no locus standi. If at all any person is to claim interest on the amount deposited by the auction purchaser as price for the machinery or compensation for loss of profit, it is only the auction purchaser Ramesh Kumar. The petitioner is not holding any Power of Attorney from Ramesh Kumar. Hence, he cannot maintain the prayers.

7. In the result, we have no hesitation to dismiss the writ petition. In view of the fact that the writ petition is directed also against Union of India and the Indian Overseas Bank it should be numbered and taken on file, though we are dismissing it in limine. The Registry is directed to number the petition and this will be the order in the said writ petition.

8. The prayer in the W.M.P. reads as follows:

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioner herein respectfully PRAYS that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue suitable Direction to the Respondent No. 1 herein not to assign any Judicial work to respondent No. 3 herein till the Contempt petition, the writ miscellaneous petition and writ petition in terms of prayers A and B of the main petition are heard and decided by an appropriate Bench in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good conscience. And as in duty bound, the petitioner shall ever pray.

As the prayer is only till the disposal of the contempt petition and the other petitions mentioned therein and as we have now disposed of the said petitions, the prayer has become infructuous. Hence, the W.M.P. is dismissed. The Registry is directed to number the said W.M.P. also and this will be the order thereon.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *