Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2015 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 26 - GUJARAT HIGH COURTReference petition - Application for early hearing of petition - Held that:- Rule 5 authorises either a learned Single Judge or a Division Bench to refer the matter pending before them or any question arising in such matter to a Division Bench of two-Judges or a larger Bench respectively. On such Reference being made, it is the duty of the Chief Justice to constitute either a Division Bench or a larger one for the decision on the question referred or for decision of the matter referred. - Rule 6 of the Rules of 1993 merely authorizes the Chief Justice to place any pending matter or any type of pending matters to a Division Bench or a Larger Bench notwithstanding the fact that according to the Rules of 1993 those matters are required to be decided by any learned Single Judge or a Division Bench fixed by the Chief Justice in exercise of his power of fixation of roster. The aforesaid Rule also authorizes the Chief Justice to place the matter, which is otherwise required to be heard by a Division Bench, for hearing before a Larger Bench. The Chief Justice, in his administrative capacity, cannot constitute a Larger Bench for the purpose of deciding a pure question of law simply because the Chief Justice is of the view that such question, notwithstanding a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in one way or other, is required to be heard by a Larger Bench. Even if on any important question, there is no decision of this court, such fact cannot enable a learned Chief Justice to constitute a Larger Bench suo motu in exercise of administrative power. - We are quite conscious of the inherent power of the Chief Justice as the “master of roster”. By virtue of such power, it is for the Chief Justice to decide which of the learned judges or the existing benches should decide any particular matter or a type of the matters. Such inherent power, however, does not authorize a Chief Justice to make a Reference in a judicial side by taking aid of his suo motu order in administrative capacity. So far the Reference by a learned Single Judge of the Court or a Bench of this Court is concerned, Rule 5 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 is the statutory provision exclusively dealing with the same and on the basis of such provision, there is no scope of initiating a suo motu Reference by a Chief Justice in his administrative capacity - We, therefore, find that the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association has substance and on that ground alone, we dispose of all these suo motu References as not maintainable. - Decided against Appellant.
|