JUDGMENT
Bilal Nazki, J.
1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal which we would have preferred not to hear and would have been happy if it has been heard by a Bench which had entertained it at the first instance. It appears that this L.P.A was entertained by the Chief Justice himself on a note submitted to him by the Registrar (Judicial). The then Chief Justice P.S. Mishra has retired and the learned Judge who sat with the Chief Justice is not a Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court now, therefore in compulsion, as the Judges who passed the earlier order treating the matter as Letters Patent Appeal are not available, we have heard this matter. When this matter came up before us on 8-11-2002 we have passed the following order:
“Heard in part. This matter raises certain important questions which need to be settled once for all. It appears that a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed a criminal revision and gave certain directions in the matter besides allowing the revision. The file appears to have been seen by Registrar (Judicial) who prepared a note for perusal of the learned Chief Justice. The learned Chief Justice directed that the matter be placed on judicial side before his Bench on the same day. The note of the Registrar (Judicial) was treated by the Division Bench headed by the learned Chief Justice as an LPA under clause 15 of the Letters Patent and the order of the learned Single Judge was partially stayed.
We have our own doubts as to whether an order passed by the learned Single Judge in a criminal revision is at all amenable to Letters Patent jurisdiction of the High Court and if such appeal is maintainable whether the Registrar (Judicial) could have put up a note and the Chief Justice could have directed to register the note of the Registrar as Letters Patent. It also requires to be seen whether the High Court can suo motu take a matter decided by the High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal without the aggrieved party having filed an appeal.
Since these matters can go to the very root of the administration of the High Court, therefore, we would like to hear the matter in detail and seek the assistance of some of the Advocates at the Bar. A request be made to the learned Advocate General, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel to assist the Court in the matter. Any other Advocates present in the Court or otherwise interested in the matter can also assist the Court. Copy of the note prepared by the Registrar (Judicial) which was eventually treated as L.P.A shall be furnished to them.
The learned Single Judge passed an order in a criminal revision. The Registrar (Judicial) put up a note to the learned Chief Justice as under:
“Submitted to The Hon ‘ble The Chief Justice
30-4-1996
Office note submitted in respect of orders dated 22-2-1996 in Criminal Revision Case No. 202 of 1993 in Criminal Revision Petition 196 of 1993 by the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.S.A. Swamy sitting as Single Judge on the Bench assigned with Criminal Revision Cases.
It is submitted that the Hon’ble Judge passed orders in the above mentioned Criminal Revision Case preferred against the orders of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 457/93 in P.R.C. 18/91 dismissing the application to recall the non-bailable warrant issued earlier in the day during the call work which the Magistrate has taken up on that day.
It is respectfully submitted that while purporting to deal with the correctness of a simple order of refusal to recall N.B.W passed by the learned Magistrate, the Hon’ble Judge while setting aside that order made observations which appear to have far-reaching consequences.
It is submitted that the Hon’ble Judge while disposing of the said Criminal Revision Case directed that the officers of the Subordinate Courts should follow a particular specific procedure and methodology in the matters which come up for consideration before the officers on judicial side, both civil and criminal.
The important question that arises is, whether such orders regulating the judicial work of the subordinate Judicial Officers could be passed in a general manner.
It is submitted that the second aspect is that the Hon’ble Judge directed that the order in question passed by that Court should be circulated to all the Judicial Officers.
The important question that arises is, whether a Bench of the High Court while passing judicial orders can also direct a particular administrative action to be taken without specific orders of the Hon’ble Chief Justice.
Submitted for order.”
On the foot of the note the learned Chief Justice wrote, “Place this on judicial side before the 1st Court whose special sitting is being held today”. Thereafter the matter was placed before the 1st Court and the 1 st Court passed the following order:
“Treat the note submitted by the office as an appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against that part of the judgment in which the directions are issued to the Subordinate Courts.
Admit. Issue notice.
Until further order, there shall be an order of stay of the operation of the directions in Criminal Revision Case No. 202/93 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 196/93 by Sri Justice B.S. A. Swamy, except insofar as the decision on the merits of the petition is concerned.
Let the stay order be communicated to all the Courts in the State.”
Now, there are two important questions. One, whether the High Court has any power to entertain an LPA against an order passed in a Criminal Revision by the Single Judge of the High Court. Second, whether the Registrars should be given liberty to act as superior Courts over the orders passed by the Judges of the High Court and whether the Registrars are within their rights to express any opinions on the judgments of the Judges of the High Court and appraise those opinions to the Chief Justice and even if it is done whether the Chief Justice is within his powers, where a judgment is passed which is not in conformity with the views of the Chief Justice, to take those matters judicially forgetting the canons of law and acting suo motu like a party in a proceeding.
2. On the first question there is not much to be said because it is settled position of law that against an order passed in a criminal revision no L.P.A lies. Clause 15 of the Madras Letters Patent which is applicable to this High Court lays down:
“And we do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of Judicature at Madras from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence under the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act, or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction) of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 108 of the Government of India Act and that notwithstanding anything hereinbefore provided an appeal shall lie to the said High Court from a judgment of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 108 of the Government of India Act made (on or after the 1st day of February, 1929) in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, where the Judge who passed the judgment declares that the case is a fit one for appeal; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court or of such Division Court shall be to us, our heirs or successors in our or their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.”
From plain reading of this clause it is clear that there is no Letters Patent jurisdiction available to the High Court over an order of Single Judge passed while exercising revisional jurisdiction. It is also not available against judgments of learned Single Judge while exercising criminal jurisdiction. This view was confirmed by various earlier judgments including the judgment in In re Swaminathan, . Besides the law being certain and definite that no Letters Patent Appeal would lie under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against an order or judgment of learned Single Judge while exercising criminal jurisdiction it has also been held by the Courts that the right of appeal is creature of a statute and the appeal can be filed only if such a right exists and such appeal can be filed by an aggrieved party. We do not know in the present case how was it that the Chief Justice is aggrieved and how could an appeal be entertained on a note prepared by the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court. It is settled law that appeals can be preferred by aggrieved persons and after the aggrieved person, whether he was a party to the earlier proceedings or not, comes to the Court, he has to file a proper appeal in terms of the Rules governing the subject. The Registrars are expected not to comment on the judgments of the Judges of the Court. True the Registrars may bring to the notice of the Chief Justice any order which has been passed by any of the judges of the Court which could have some bearing on the administration of justice but at the same time Registrars should desist in expressing their opinions about the merits of the judgments passed by the Judges. The whole methodology which was adopted for bringing on record the LPA was manifestly illegal and improper. The LPA was clearly not maintainable. About the method in which this LPA was created one can only feel sorry and cannot do beyond that.
3. For these reasons, we dismiss the appeal.