1996 JTR(SC) 1686
1996 2 AllCJ 1199 ; 1996 4 CLT(SC) 218 ; 1996 9 JT 135 ; 1996 14 LCD 1262 ; 1997 1 RCR(Civ) 426 ; 1996 7 Scale 577 ; 1996 6 SCC 587 ; 1996 Supp7 SCR 400 ; 1997 1 UJ 23 ; 1996 KHC 1549 ; 1996 7 Supreme 470
1996(7) Supreme 470
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I. & Sujata V. Manohar, J.
Inder Mani & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Mathehwari Prasad & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 12982 of 1996
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 10106 of 1996)
Decided on 10-10-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : R.D. Upadhyay, Advocate.
For the Respondents : D.K. Garg and M.C. Dhingra, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial discipline requires that the puisne judges of the High Court comply with the directions of Chief Justice constituting Benches of his High Court and to allocate work to such Benches.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226
(A) The exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is invoked where a High Court ensures procedural fairness and compliance with judicial discipline, particularly when an ex parte order is passed due to systemic irregularities before a single judge, necessitating intervention to restore the rule of law and protect the rights of the parties by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter for a fair hearing in accordance with law.
(B) Judicial discipline and the authority of the Chief Justice to constitute Benches and allocate work are paramount; a single judge must comply with administrative directions and cannot sit singly in defiance of such directions. Ex parte orders passed without proper notice or after threats to counsel undermine due process and are unsustainable. The inherent powers under Article 226 enable the Supreme Court to correct such irregularities and ensure the integrity of the judicial process.
Facts of the case:
A writ petition was listed before a single judge who on the date fixed informed counsel for the appellants that the case would be taken up on a specific date. On that date, the counsel was allegedly threatened and did not appear, and the petition was subsequently listed before the same judge. The advocate applied for an adjournment, which was denied, and the petition was decided ex parte. The case was then reassigned to a Division Bench, but the single judge proceeded in a single-judge capacity and passed an order allowing the petition.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the single judge acted in disregard of the Chief Justice's directions by sitting singly and proceeding with the matter, thereby violating judicial discipline. The ex parte order was passed without affording a proper opportunity to the appellants, and the situation was exacerbated by the threats and the failure to follow proper listing procedures.
Issues:
Whether the single judge was justified in disregarding the Chief Justice's directions to sit in a Division Bench; whether the ex parte order passed under these circumstances can be sustained; and whether the principles of natural justice and due process were complied with.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court held that a High Court judge must adhere to the administrative directions of the Chief Justice regarding Bench constitution and case allocation. Disregarding such directions and proceeding singly, especially after being formally informed and reconstituted, constitutes a breach of judicial discipline. An ex parte order passed under these tainted circumstances offends the principles of natural justice and must be set aside, with the matter remitted for a fair hearing before another competent judge.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the High Court for disposal on merits before another learned single judge.
(A) The exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is invoked where a High Court ensures procedural fairness and compliance with judicial discipline, particularly when an ex parte order is passed due to systemic irregularities before a single judge, necessitating intervention to restore the rule of law and protect the rights of the parties by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter for a fair hearing in accordance with law.
(B) Judicial discipline and the authority of the Chief Justice to constitute Benches and allocate work are paramount; a single judge must comply with administrative directions and cannot sit singly in defiance of such directions. Ex parte orders passed without proper notice or after threats to counsel undermine due process and are unsustainable. The inherent powers under Article 226 enable the Supreme Court to correct such irregularities and ensure the integrity of the judicial process.
Facts of the case:
A writ petition was listed before a single judge who on the date fixed informed counsel for the appellants that the case would be taken up on a specific date. On that date, the counsel was allegedly threatened and did not appear, and the petition was subsequently listed before the same judge. The advocate applied for an adjournment, which was denied, and the petition was decided ex parte. The case was then reassigned to a Division Bench, but the single judge proceeded in a single-judge capacity and passed an order allowing the petition.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the single judge acted in disregard of the Chief Justice's directions by sitting singly and proceeding with the matter, thereby violating judicial discipline. The ex parte order was passed without affording a proper opportunity to the appellants, and the situation was exacerbated by the threats and the failure to follow proper listing procedures.
Issues:
Whether the single judge was justified in disregarding the Chief Justice's directions to sit in a Division Bench; whether the ex parte order passed under these circumstances can be sustained; and whether the principles of natural justice and due process were complied with.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court held that a High Court judge must adhere to the administrative directions of the Chief Justice regarding Bench constitution and case allocation. Disregarding such directions and proceeding singly, especially after being formally informed and reconstituted, constitutes a breach of judicial discipline. An ex parte order passed under these tainted circumstances offends the principles of natural justice and must be set aside, with the matter remitted for a fair hearing before another competent judge.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the High Court for disposal on merits before another learned single judge.
JUDGMENT
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.-Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dated 22.12.1995 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7013 of 1980. By the said judgment the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent ex parte. On 22.12.1995, the learned advocate who appeared for the appellants had made an application supported by affidavit dated 22.12.1995 asking for an adjournment for reasons stated in the affidavit. This application was not granted. The learned advocate thereafter did not appear in the case and the impugned judgment has been passed ex-parte. In view of certain averments made in the special leave petition relating to what transpired in the Court of the learned Single Judge on 19.12.1995, 21.12.1995 and 22.12.1995 we directed the Registrar of the Allahabad High Court to place before us a status report in this behalf so that we could appreciate and deal with the averments. The Registrar of the Allahabad High Court has filed an affidavit before us along with the daily cause lists for 19.12.1995, 21.12.1995 and 22.12.1995 as also the order-sheets relating to the said writ petition.
3. On 19.12.1995 the writ petition was listed before Hon ble Mr. Justice A.P. Singh in Court No. 28. The order passed by him on 19th of December, 1995 is to the effect that an illness slip has been received from counsel for the appellants (respondents before the High Court) although there are other counsel also listed as representing the appellants. It goes on to say: "the case is passed over but as requested by the learned counsel for the peti-tioners, it will be taken up on 21.12.1995 on which date it shall not be adjourned on any ground. Learned counsel for the petitioners may inform the learned counsel for the respondents that the case will be taken up on 21.12.1995."
4. In view of this order, the writ petition was placed in Court No. 28 before the learned Single Judge on 21.12.1995 as an unlisted case. The Daily Cause List for 21.12.1995 does not list this writ petition before the learned Judge. The order passed on 21.12.1995 by the learned Single Judge is as follows :
"Shri Lalji Pandey learned counsel for the respondents has stated that he is not aware of the fact that the case is posted for today. He prays that the case may be put up tomorrow so that he may prepare the case. Put up tomorrow (22.12.1995) at 10.00 a.m."
5. It is the case of learned advocate for the appellants that as he came out of the court on 21.12.1995 he was threatened by an unknown person and told not to appear in the case. He claims to have mentioned this to the learned Single Judge on the same day. He also claims to have mentioned this incident before the Hon ble the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court. However, there is no material on record on the action taken, if any.
6. On 22.12.1995 the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court in the morning reconstituted the Division Bench presided over by Mr. Justice V.N. Khare (as he then was) with Mr. Justice A.P. Singh. In the Daily Cause List the constitution of this Division Bench was shown as originally constituted i.e. Hon ble Mr. Justice V.N. Khare and Hon ble Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam. The Chief Justice assigned other work of Court Room No. 36 to Justice Rafat Alam when he reconstituted the Division Bench. On such reconstitution both the learned Judges were informed about the arrangements made by Hon ble the Chief Justice. However, Justice A.P. Singh did not sit on the Division Bench with Justice V.N. Khare. When Justice A.P. Singh did not join the Division Bench, the Hon ble the Chief Justice was apprised of the situation. He thereupon directed that Justice Aloke Chakrabarti be requested to join Justice V.N. Khare and the Division Bench was constituted accordingly. Mr. Justice A.P. Singh sat singly in Court Room No. 28. In the Daily Cause List of the learned Judge for 22.12.1995 also the said writ petition was not listed. He heard the aforesaid writ petition, which was allowed by him by his judgment and order dated 22.12.1995.
7. The Registrar s affidavit discloses a somewhat alarming situation. It is the prerogative of the Chief Justice to constitute Benches of his High Court and to allocate work to such Benches. Judicial discipline requires that the puisne Judges of the High Court comply with the directions given in this regard by their Chief Justice. In fact it is their duty to do so. Individual puisne Judges cannot pick and choose the matters they will hear or decide nor can they decide whether to sit singly or in a Division Bench. When the Chief Justice had constituted a Division Bench of Justice V.N. Khare and the learned Judge, it was incumbent upon the learned Judge to sit in a Division Bench with Justice V.N. Khare and dispose of the work assigned to this Division Bench. It was most improper on his part to disregard the administrative directions given by the Chief Justice of the High Court and to sit singly to take up matters that he thought he should take up. Even if he was originally shown as sitting singly on 22.12.1995, when the Bench was reconstituted and he was so informed, he was required to sit in a Division Bench on that day and was bound to carry out this direction. If there was any difficulty, it was his duty to go to the Chief Justice and explain the situation so that the Chief Justice could then give appropriate directions in that connection. But he could not have, on his own, disregarded the directions given by the Chief Justice and chosen to sit singly. We deprecate this behaviour which totally undermines judicial discipline and proper functioning of the High Court.
8. Looking to these regrettable circumstances in which the impugned order came to be passed ex parte by the learned Single Judge, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the High Court for decision on merit in accordance with law. The matter may be placed before another learned Single Judge by the Hon ble Chief Justice.
9. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
Appeal disposed of accordingly.
*******
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Inder Mani & Ors. v. Mathehwari Prasad & Ors., 1996(7) Supreme 470 : JT 1996(9) SC 135
00031