1989 (9) TMI 406 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the trial court to pass the order.
2. Conflict in interim orders passed in related writ petitions.
3. Authority of the Chief Justice in assigning judicial business.
4. Validity of the impugned order passed by Mr. Justice Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the trial court to pass the order:
The appeal questions the jurisdiction of Mr. Justice Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee to pass the order on April 6, 1989, as he was assigned to hear Part-heard and Contempt matters only. The appellant argued that since the writ petition was not a 'part-heard' matter, it could not have been listed before and heard by him on that day. The court reviewed the constitutional and statutory provisions, including the Charter Act, Government of India Act, 1915, Government of India Act, 1935, and the Constitution of India, which vest the Chief Justice with the power to determine which judges sit alone or in Division Courts and allocate judicial business. The court concluded that Mr. Justice Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee lacked jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application on April 6, 1989, as the case was not assigned to him by the Chief Justice.

2. Conflict in interim orders passed in related writ petitions:
The appellant and others filed separate writ petitions with identical prayers to stay the investigation and proceedings in Chitpur Police Station Case No. 94. Different interim orders were passed in these petitions, leading to conflicting directions. In one case, the investigation was allowed but the filing of the final report was restrained, while in another, the investigation was completely barred. The court noted that the conflicting orders were due to the separate filing and hearing of the writ petitions without informing the court of the existence of other related petitions. Mr. Justice Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee attempted to resolve this conflict by recalling the interim orders and making them uniform.

3. Authority of the Chief Justice in assigning judicial business:
The court emphasized that the Chief Justice has the constitutional power to determine which judges sit alone or in Division Courts and allocate judicial business. This power is derived from Section 108 of the Government of India Act, 1915, and is reaffirmed by subsequent statutes and the Constitution. The Chief Justice's authority in this matter is inherent and recognized by the Rules of the High Court at Calcutta. The court cited several precedents, including National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick & Bros. and State of Maharashtra v. Narayan, to support this position. The court concluded that any judicial order passed by a judge without proper assignment by the Chief Justice is without jurisdiction and void.

4. Validity of the impugned order passed by Mr. Justice Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee:
The court found that the impugned order modifying the interim relief previously granted was without jurisdiction as Mr. Justice Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee was not authorized to hear the matter on April 6, 1989. The proper remedy for the party aggrieved by the interim order was to move the appropriate Bench dealing with that category of cases. The court declared the impugned order void and without effect in the eye of law. The court clarified that it did not go into the merits of the dispute and that the respondents could seek appropriate relief from the appropriate Bench in accordance with law.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was declared void and without effect. The court emphasized the importance of the Chief Justice's authority in assigning judicial business and the necessity of proper jurisdiction for judicial orders. The respondents were given liberty to seek appropriate relief from the appropriate Bench. The application was disposed of in light of the foregoing order, and any interim relief was vacated.