Case Note & Summary
By special leave, appellants challenged the judgment and order dated 22.12.1995 of a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.7013 of 1980, whereby the writ petition filed by the first respondent was allowed ex parte. The dispute arose from procedural irregularities in the listing and hearing of the writ petition. The writ petition had been listed on 19.12.1995 before Justice A.P. Singh; after an illness slip from appellants' counsel, it was passed over to 21.12.1995 with a direction that it would not be adjourned further. On 21.12.1995, though not listed in the daily cause list, the matter was taken up and counsel for appellants sought time to prepare; it was posted to 22.12.1995. On that date, the Chief Justice of the High Court reconstituted a Division Bench comprising Justice V.N. Khare and Justice A.P. Singh, but Justice A.P. Singh did not sit in the Division Bench and instead sat singly in Court No.28. The writ petition was not listed before him, but he heard it and allowed it ex parte, despite an adjournment application supported by affidavit filed by appellants' counsel on 22.12.1995, which was not granted. The counsel also claimed to have been threatened on 21.12.1995 not to appear. The Supreme Court directed the Registrar of the Allahabad High Court to file a status report, which confirmed these facts. The core legal issues were whether the learned Single Judge acted in violation of judicial discipline by disregarding the Chief Justice's administrative direction to sit in a Division Bench and by hearing an unlisted matter ex parte, and whether the ex parte order should be set aside due to denial of fair opportunity. Appellants contended that their counsel was denied adjournment without valid reason, the case was not listed, and the Single Judge had no authority to sit singly after being assigned to a Division Bench. The first respondent had earlier obtained an order that the case would not be adjourned on 21.12.1995. The Supreme Court emphasised that the Chief Justice has the prerogative to constitute Benches and allocate work; judicial discipline requires puisne judges to comply with such directions, and individual judges cannot pick and choose matters or decide to sit singly in disregard of reconstitution. It was incumbent on the learned Judge to sit in the Division Bench with Justice V.N. Khare, and his failure to do so was most improper and undermined judicial discipline and the proper functioning of the High Court. The Court deprecated this behaviour. In view of these regrettable circumstances, including the ex parte nature of the order and the procedural irregularities, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the High Court for decision on merits in accordance with law, directing that it be placed before another Single Judge by the Chief Justice. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Judicial Discipline - Administrative Powers of Chief Justice - Reconstitution of Benches - Puisne Judges' Duty to Comply - Constitution of India, 1950 (No specific section cited) - The Chief Justice of the High Court reconstituted a Division Bench on 22.12.1995, but the puisne judge sat singly and heard a matter not listed, disregarding the administrative direction. The Supreme Court held that the Chief Justice has the prerogative to constitute Benches and allocate work; judicial discipline requires puisne judges to comply, and it was improper to disregard directions. It deprecated this behaviour as undermining judicial discipline and proper functioning of the High Court. Held that the impugned order was vitiated by this procedural impropriety. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Natural Justice - Ex Parte Proceedings and Right to be Heard - Adjournment and Listing Irregularities - No specific statute; principles of fair hearing - The advocate for the appellants sought adjournment on 22.12.1995 by affidavit, the case was not listed in the daily cause list, and the advocate claimed threats on 21.12.1995. The High Court nevertheless proceeded ex parte and allowed the writ petition. The Supreme Court held that in these regrettable circumstances, the ex parte order could not be sustained; it set aside the order and remitted the matter for decision on merits in accordance with law before another Single Judge. Held that denial of proper opportunity and judicial discipline warranted interference. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court acted in violation of judicial discipline by sitting singly and hearing the writ petition ex parte despite being assigned to a Division Bench; whether the ex parte order should be set aside and the matter remitted.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; judgment and order dated 22.12.1995 of the Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.7013 of 1980 set aside; matter remitted to Allahabad High Court for decision on merits in accordance with law; to be placed before another Single Judge by the Chief Justice; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Chief Justice has prerogative to constitute benches and allocate work
- puisne judges must comply with Chief Justice's directions
- individual judges cannot pick and choose matters or decide to sit singly after being assigned to a Division Bench
- ex parte order passed in disregard of these principles and without proper opportunity is liable to be set aside.
