http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: INDER MANI & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MATHEHWARI PRASAD & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/10/1996

BENCH: A.M. AHMADI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T      Mrs.Sujata V.Manohar,J.      Leave granted.      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.      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 petitioners, 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."      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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

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 (22.1231995)      at 10.00 a.m."      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.      On 22.1.1995  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.      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 his 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 she 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

chosen to  sit singly.  We deprecate  this  behaviour  which totally   undermines    Judicial   discipline   and   proper functioning of the High Court.      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.      The appeal  is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.