JUDGMENT S.P. Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Sri Wajahat Hussain and Sri Ashok Bhushan learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.M.A. Kazmi, learned Special Counsel representing the respondents.
2. Perused the record.
3. The Special Counsel representing the respondents has produced for the perusal of the Court, the original order passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 22-5-1997 published in the cause list of the Court on 29-5-1997 as well as the earlier order passed by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. S. Sodhi, the then Chief Justice.
4. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice referred to herein above published in the cause list of the Court on 29 5-1997 and has approached this Court seeking quashing of the said order.
5. The petitioner had been placed under suspension vide an order dated 7-5-1997, which is claimed to have been served upon him on 29-5-1997. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order placing him under suspension he challenged the same by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19903 of 1997.
6. The Additional Registrar (Listing) acting pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice examined the application supported by an affidavit which accompanied the writ petition pointing out the urgency in the matter. Since the Additional Registrar (Listing) felt that the case was not urgent and could wait till the reopening of the Court, he placed the aforesaid application alongwith the record before the senior Vacation Judge for his consideration. The Hon'ble Senior Vacation Judge on consideration directed for the listing of the case for admission after the vacation. The result was that the case was not assigned for being disposed of to any ether Vacation judge appointed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice under the order dated 22-5-1997. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No 26006 of 1997 has sought for the quashing of the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice referred to hereinabove.
7. The petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No 20082 of 1997 was also aggrieved by an order dated 26-5-1897, placing him under suspension and had challenged the same by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No, 19910-A of 1997. In that case also the similar procedure was adopted as in she other writ petition referred to hereinabove and in this case also on 4-6-1997, the Senior Vacation Judge passed similar order directing the writ petition to come up after vacation with the result that the writ petition was not assigned for disposal to any of the vacation Judges. The petitioner in this case has sought for the quashing the order of Hon'ble, the Chief Justice as well as the order passed by the Senior vacation Judge. He has also prayed for a direction requiring the Additional Registrar (Listing) to list the writ petition No.19901-A of 1997 before the appropriate Bench during the vacation.
8. Taking into consideration the nature of the controversy raised in both the above cases, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
9. Before proceeding further, it may be noticed that the Hon'ble the Chief Justice S.S. Sodhi vide his earlier order had issued several directions which included a direction to the effect that all applications and petitions shall with effect from that date be filed in the Registry and shall be put up before the appropriate Bench along with the record and where any such application or petition was accompanied by an application setting forth the grounds of urgency necessitating the early hearing thereof the same shall be put up for hearing before the appropriate Bench alongwith the record on the date following the next date.
10. On 22nd May, 1997, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice passed an order relating to the programme of sitting during the summer vacations 1997 both at Allahabad and at Lucknow. A perusal of that order produced by the learned Special Counsel indicates that Hon'ble Mr. Justice D. S. Sinha was appointed as the Senior Vacation Judge and for the period 2-6-1997 to 6-6-1997, 8 Hon'ble Judges, for the period 9-6-1997 to 13-6-1997, 6 Hon'ble Judges, for the period 16-6-1997 to 20-6-1997 5 Hon'ble Judges and for the period 23-6-1997 to 30-6 1997, 4 Hon'ble Judges were appointed as Vacation Judges, constituting Benches for disposing of fresh matters with different jurisdictions. The aforesaid order contains a direction to the effect that during the vacations only urgent matters which could not wait till the reopening of the court could be entertained. It was further provided that the civil cases and writ petitions filed during the vacations, should be accompanied by a separate application supported by an affidavit specifically stating the urgency in the matter. Such applications were to be examined by the Additional Registrar (Listing) or any Officer incharge of his office during the vacation and incase it was felt that the case is not urgent and it can wait till the reopening of the court, the record was to be placed before the Hon'ble the Senior Vacation Judge for his consideration.
11. The aforesaid directions form integral part of the order regarding the programme of sitting during the summer vacation 1997 which besides appointing the vacation Judges also specified the jurisdiction to be exercised by them in relation to the fresh matters. The petitioners in both the cases are aggrieved by the directions contained in the aforesaid order dated 22-5-1997 passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice where under the procedure regulating the allocation assignment of the fresh cases for disposal before the vacation Judges was prescribed providing for the examination of the matter relating to the urgency and the consideration of the report of the Additional Registrar (Listing) by the Senior Vacation Judge in a case where the Additional Registrar (Listing) felt that the case was not urgent and could wait till the reopening of the court
12. The learned Counsel for the petitioners have urged that the directions issued by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice referred to hereinabove, are clearly without jurisdiction and militate upon and curtail the jurisdiction vesting in a vacation Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under the Rules framed in exercise of the jurisdiction envisaged under Article 225 of the Constitution of India. The contention is that the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, while exercising a jurisdiction contemplated under Rule 1, 9 or Rule 10 of The Allahabad High Court Rules (Rules of the Court, 1952) framed under Article 225 of the Constitution of India has no jurisdiction to create a situation where under a vacation Judge duly appointed as such as contemplated under Rule 10 of the Rules stands prevented from exercising the exclusive jurisdiction secured in his favour to decide as to whether a fresh matter requires immediate attention or not and further stands prevented from exercising the jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India resulting in the negation of the Constitutional remedy provided to an aggrieved person to approach the High Court.
13. The learned Special Counsel representing the respondents has however, urged that the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice is well within the jurisdiction secured in his favour under the Rules of the Court and does not have any such adverse effect as urged by the petitioner. It has further been contended that the writ petition is misconceived and no interference is called for in the impugned orders.
14. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and have carefully perused the record.
15. The Rules 1, 9, 10 and 11 of Chapter V of the Rules of the Court are to the following effect:
"Chapter V Rule 1.--Constitution of Benches-Judges shall sit alone or in such Division Courts as may be constituted from time to time and do such work as may be allotted them by order of the Chief Justice or in accordance with his directions"
"Chapter V Rule 9 Senior Judge. --Subject to any general or special order of the Chief Justice, Senior Judges at Allahabad and Lucknow shall, in the absence of the Chief Justice, exercise jurisdiction at their respective places in connection with the arrangement of Benches, listing of cases and other like matter.", "Chapter V Rule 10 Judge on duty during vacation.--(\) Criminal work shall continue to be dealt with during the vacation by such judges as may be appointed for the purpose by the Chief Justice.
They may also exercise original, appellate, revisional, civil or writ jurisdiction vested in the Court in fresh matters which in their opinion require immediate attention.
Such jurisdiction may be exercised even in cases which are under the Rules cognizable by two or more Judges, unless the case is required by any other law to be heard by more than one Judge.
Subject to any general or special order of the Chief Justice, the senior most vacation Judge at Allahabad or Lucknow, as the case may be shall in the absence of the Chief Justice exercise jurisdiction at Allahabad or Lucknow, as the case may be, in connection with the arrangement of Benches, listing of cases and other like matters."
"Chapter V Rule 11. Bearing in Chambers (an urgent application),--(1) A proceeding under the Indian Trusts Act, 1982, (or the Companies with the arrangement of the Benches, listing of the cases and other like matters with which the Chief Justice stands vested.
16. Apart from the other things stipulated Rule 11 of the Rules it is also provided that during the vacations an urgent application may be made to the vacation Judge with his leave in chambers or at his residence.
17. It will be apparent from a perusal of the aforesaid provisions that Chief Justice stands vested with the exclusive jurisdiction to allot or assign work to a Judge/Judges sitting singly or in Division Benches and upon the assignment/allocation of the work or case the Judge concerned stands vested with the jurisdiction of the Court in the matter relating to that case which vests in the court itself. It is therefore obvious that in the absence of the allotment/allocation of the work a Judge either sitting alone or in Division Benches cannot exercise the Jurisdiction vesting in the High Court in the matter relating to a case whether fresh or listed or pending.
18. As pointed out by Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Inder Mani and Ors. v. Matheshwari Prasad and Ors. reported in JT 1996 (9) SC 135, it is the prerogative of the Chief Justice to constitute the Bench of his Court and to allocate work to such Benches, it was emphasised by the Apex Court that judicial discipline requires that the puisne Judges of the High Court comply with the directions given in this regard by their Chief Justice. Infact it is their duty to do so. it was further clarified that 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.
19. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is obvious that the power to allocate or assign work to a puisne judge stands vested in the Chief Justice and in the absence of allocation or assignment, the jurisdiction vesting in the court cannot be exercised by a puisne Judge during the vacations. The Rules specifically provide that the criminal work of the court shall continue to be dealt with by such Judges as may be appointed for the purposes by the Chief Justice Such vacation Judges also stand vested with the jurisdiction to exercise original, appellate, revisional, civil or writ jurisdiction vested in the court in fresh matters which in their opinion require immediate attention.
20. The Senior Vacation Judge, it seems to me has dual capacity, Being the Senior Vacation Judge, in the absence of the Chief Justice, he stands vested with the jurisdiction vesting in the Chief Justice in connection with the arrangement of the Benches, listing of the cases and other like matters. The jurisdiction in this regard which exclusively vests in the Chief Justice stands delegated to the Senior Vacation Judge. A Senior Vacation Judge who stands vested with the aforesaid jurisdiction which stands delegated to him none the less remains a vacation Judge with all the powers which stand vested in a Vacation Judge by virtue of his appointment as such by the Chief Justice.
21. As has already been noticed hereinabove, the Chief Justice has the exclusive jurisdiction to constitute Benches and provide which jurisdiction such Benches will exercise. In other words, the Chief Justice determines the extent of the jurisdiction vesting in the Court which can be exercised by a Judge sitting singly or in Division Benches at a given point of time. This jurisdiction may be in regard to entertaining fresh applications and fresh cases or any case which stands assigned or allocated to a particular Judge, The Chief Justice or the Senior Vacation Judge who stands vested to a limited extent with the jurisdiction of the Chief Justice can also exercise the jurisdiction in regard to the arrangement of Benches, listing of the cases and other like matters and can further exercise the jurisdiction vesting in the Vacation Judge in regard to the determination of the question as to whether a fresh matter requires immediate attention.
22. The direction issued by Hon'ble the Chief Justice under the impugned order, it seems to me, only regulates the assignment or allocation of work. The Senior Vacation Judge while considering the report submitted by the Additional Registrar (Listing) or any other officer as provided under the impugned direction indicating that the case is not urgent and can wait till the reopening of the Court acts in the capacity of a Vacation Judge, I am of the clear opinion that a Senior Vacation Judge by virtue of his appointment as a Vacation Judge stands vested with ample jurisdiction to go into the question as to whether a fresh matter requires immediate attention or not. In the capacity of a Senior Vacation Judge vested with the jurisdiction in connection with the arrangement of the Benches, listing of the cases and other like matters, on coming to the conclusion in the capacity of a Vacation Judge that the fresh matter does not require immediate attention, the Senior Vacation Judge in his capacity as a Senior Vacation Judge can postpone the assignment or allocation of the cases to any other Vacation Judge for disposal providing for its listing after the end of the vacation when the court reopens resuming its normal functioning.
23. It has been contained that the Chief Justice, while issuing the order in question had allocated different jurisdictions to different vacation Judges providing clearly that they shaft exercise the jurisdiction in the matter relating to fresh cases falling under those jurisdictions. In this view of the matter, it is urged, that the decision as to whether the fresh case requires immediate attention or not can only be taken by the concerned Vacation Judge and the Senior Vacation Judge, who has not been assigned any particular jurisdiction in the sitting programme for the vacation. The submission in this regard is totally misconceived and baseless. As has already been indicated hereinabove, the Senior Vacation Judge acts in a dual capacity. He exercise the limited jurisdiction of the Chief Justice in the matters relating to allocation of Benches. listing of cases and other like matters. In this capacity, he can allocate to himself any fresh cases and in that view of the matter, the order of the Chief Justice dated 22-5 1997 has to be taken as modified to that extent. Where the Senior Vacation Judge, in the capacity of a Vacation Judge chooses to decide the question as to whether a fresh case requires immediate attention or not, the jurisdiction contemplated under Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court in this regard will be deemed to have been exercised and the matter cannot be reopened. Even the directions contained in the order of the Chief Justice dated 22-5-1997 specifically authorise the Senior Vacation Judge to take a decision on the question as to whether a fresh case requires immediate attention or not. The expression 'consider' as used in the aforesaid direction signifies that the Senior Vacation Judge in the capacity as a duly appointed Vacation Judge can consider the question as to whether the fresh case requires immediate attention of the court or not. The Senior Vacation Judge can however, leave this question for being considered by any other Vacation Judge and assign or allocate the case to such a Judge, while acting in the capacity of the Senior Vacation Judge exercising the jurisdiction of the Chief Justice in the matter relating to arrangement of Benches, listing of cases and other like matters. In that event the decision of the concerned Vacation Judge as to whether the fresh case allotted assigned to him requires immediate attention of the Court or not will be final.
24. It has been urged that the impugned direction vests the Additional Registrar (Listing) or any other Officer as provided under the order with the jurisdiction to take a decision in regard to the urgency of the matter which is not permissible as this is the jurisdiction of the Vacation Judge and net the Additional Registrar (Listing) or any other Officer. The direction issued by, the Chief Justice does not lead to any such inference as is sought to be drawn from the same. It must be emphasised that ordinarily ail fresh cases received in the Registry have to be put up for consideration before the concerned Vacation Judge. The Chief Justice however, under the impugned direction has directed that incase the Additional Registrar (Listing) or any other Officer as provided under the directions finds that the case is not urgent and can wait till the reopening of the Court, he has not to act upon any such decision but has to make a report in this regard for consideration by the Senior Vacation Judge. This procedure does not prejudice any aggrieved party, if the Additional Registrar finds that the fresh case requires it to be put up before the concerned Vacation Judge, he will put the same before the concerned Vacation Judge. There can be no grievance so far as this aspect is concerned. If the Additional Registrar (Listing) or the Officer contemplated under the order finds that the case is not an urgent one and can wait till the reopening of the Court, he cannot withheld the fresh case in the Registry but has to send it to the Senior Vacation Judge who in the capacity of a Vacation Judge will take a decision on the question as to whether the fresh case is such which requires the immediate attention of the Court. He may take this decision himself and postpone the allotment or assignment of such a case in which he finds that the matter does net require the immediate attention of the Court directing that it will come up after vacations. This he can do in the capacity of a Vacation Judge exercising the jurisdiction vested in him by vitue of his being appointed Vacation Judge. Once a decision is taken by the Senior Vacation Judge, postponing the allocation/ assignment of a case to any other Vacation Judge on the finding that the case does not require immediate attention of the Court, there can be no grievance as the question as to whether the fresh case is such which requires immediate attention has to be taken to have been decided by a Vacation Judge and it cannot be reopened.
25. It further seems to me that the procedure evolved in the impugned order does not militate against or curtails the jurisdiction of the Court vesting in a Vacation Judge once he is seized of the case properly assigned or allotted to him in accordance with the Rules of the Court. He is free to exercise all the jurisdiction vesting in the Court with regard to the case in hand. There may be a case where on coming to know certain facts or illegalities while dealing with a ease allotted or assigned to a particular puisne Judge or in any other manner he may choose to take an action suo moto. In such a case on the action being taken a fresh case may be registered A case registered in such a manner has to be dealt with in accordance with the directions of the Chief Justice in the matter relating to allocation of work. It may be noticed in this connection that in the case of Latoori Das v. State of U.P. (Second Appeal No. 1552 of 1969 decided on 24-1-1972) which was a second appeal learned Single Judge of this Court while hearing the second Appeal noticed certain facts and came across a patently illegal order convicting the appellant of an offence under the Indian Penal Code. The appellant wanted re-instatement in service which was not possible in face of the conviction. Being satisfied that a suo moto action was called for, the Single Judge hearing the Second Appeal exercised the jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code and called for the record of the criminal case, wherein conviction had been recorded against the appellant. On this suo moto action being taken a criminal revision was registered. The Single Judge hearing the second appeal could net exercise the revisional jurisdiction envisaged under Criminal Procedure Code for deciding a revision registered on the suo moto action taken by him. The capacity as a Senior Vacation Judge exercising the limited jurisdiction of the Chief Justice with which he stands vested by virtue of his appointment as a Senior Vacation Judge, The impugned directions cannot by any stretch of imagination lead to any such inference as in sought to be drawn having the effect of nullifying the aforesaid provisions. The vacation Judge referred to in the aforesaid provisions may be any Vacation Judge appointed either by any general or special order passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice or nominated by Hon'ble Senior Vacation Judge varying the order passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice exercising the delegated jurisdiction vesting in him.
26. It further seems to me that even if there is any general or special order passed by Hon'ble Chief Justice nominating any Vacation Judge appointed by him for ex raising a particular jurisdiction in the matter relating to a fresh case such an order can be varied by the Senior Vacation Judge in exercise of the limited jurisdiction which stands delegated to him by virtue of his having been appointed a Senior Vacation Judge in regard to the matters relating to the Constitution of Benches, listing of cases or any other like matter. Under the order passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 22-5-T997 the applications seeking to treat the fresh case as urgent where the Additional Registrar did not find the fresh case to be an urgent one stood automatically assigned/allocated to the Senior Vacation Judge for being disposed of in the capacity of a Vacation Judge who stand vested with the jurisdiction to consider the question as to whether a particular fresh case requires immediate attention of the court or not. This part of the order could be varied by the Senior Vacation Judge exercising the delegated jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Chief Justice vesting in a Senior Vacation Judge by either allocating/assigning the aforesaid application along with the record of the fresh case for being considered by any other Vacation Judge and in that event the concerned Vacation Judge could exercise the jurisdiction to determine the question as to whether the fresh case is such which requires immediate attention of the court or not. The Senior Vacation Judge, however, could himself decide the question as to whether the fresh case requires immediate attention of the Court and coming to the conclusion that it did not can assign or allocate the case for being disposed of by any Vacation Judge in which case the concerned Vacation Judge has to proceed taking the case to be such which requires immediate attention of the Court. There may be a case where without determining the question as to whether the case requires immediate attention of the Court or not, the Senior Vacation Judge may direct the case to be listed after vacations, This type of order will be clearly an administrative order passed in the capacity of a Senior Vacation Judge exercising the delegated power of the Hon'ble Chief Justice and will fall in the category of an administrative order. Such an order without there being any determination as to whether the case requires immediate attention of the Court or not cannot come in the way of the Vacation Judge vested with the jurisdiction to deal with a fresh case to call for the record of the case from the Registry and consider the question as to whether the case requires immediate attention to the Court or not an coming to the conclusion that it does the concerned Vacation Judge can proceed and dispose of the fresh case on merits. There may yet be another situation where although an order passed by the Senior Vacation Judge ex facie indicates that the fresh case does not involve any such urgency which may require immediate attention of the Court but is based on non-existent material. In that event there being no decision at all on the matter relating to the urgency on the question as to whether the case require immediate attention of the Court or not the concerned Vacation Judge vested with the jurisdiction to deal with such a fresh case will be well within his jurisdiction to call for the record of the case from the Registry on the application of the aggrieved party and proceed to determine the question as to whether the case requires immediate attention of the Court or not and coming to the conclusion that it does he can proceed to dispose of the case on merits or pass any appropriate orders as found just and proper.
27. It should, further, not be lost sight of that as observed by this Court in its decision in the case of Ramveer alias Omveer v. Superintendent, District Jail and Ors., reported in 1895 AWC page 1539, the provision contained in Rule 10 (2) of Chapter V of too Rules of the Court has an over-riding effect and vest in Senior Vacation Judge, the power of the Hon'ble Chief Justice in the matter relating to constitution of Benches listing of cases and other like matter. The word 'listing of the cases' is quite significant, It covers both the categories of cases i.e. those presented prior to vacation and those presented during the vacation Further the expression "listing of cases" and other like matters as used in Rule 10(2) of Chapter V of the Rules of the Court is wide enough to never the situation where the Senior Vacation Judge directs for putting up of a case either old or fresh for orders, or hearing/final disposal before any Vacation Judge sitting single or a Division Bench during the vacations. The only restriction on the exercise of such a jurisdiction, it appeals to me is that the case falling in the category of cases referred to herein above must satisfy the condition that it requires immediate attention of the Court. It should not be over-looked that there may be a case where the cause of action for a particular relief may have accrued during the vacations although the case had been filed before the vacations. The test therefore, is as to whether the application or the case requires immediate attention of the Court and this question has to be decided either by the Senior Vacation Judge in his capacity as a Vacation Judge or any other vacation Judge exercising the jurisdiction vested in him either under any general or special order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice or under an order passed by the Senior Vacation Judge in his capacity as a Senior Vacation Judge.
28. During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice that a learned Single Judge of this Court in his decision in the case of the Committee of Management, Deonagri Post Graduate College Meerut v. The Vice Chancellor, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut and Ors., (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19987 of 1997 decided on 11-6-1997), had made certain observations which indicate that the order passed by the Senior Vacation Judge in the matter relating to the disposal of the application filed alongwith the fresh case indicating the fresh case to be urgent and requiring immediate attention of the Court is only of an administrative nature and cannot come 1:1 the way of the concerned Vacation Judge functioning under the order of the Chief Justice dated 22-5-199? from considering the matter In regard to urgency himself and on coming to the conclusion that the case required -immediate attention. A copy of the aforesaid judgment was produced by the learned counsel which has been carefully perused by me.
29. In the case of Committee of Management, Deonagri Post Graduate College, Meerut (supra), the petitioner felt aggrieved by an order passed by the Vice Chancellor revoking an order placing the contesting respondent under suspension. The Additional Registrar bad reported that the case was not urgent and had put up the matter for consideration before the Senior Vacation Judge. The Senior Vacation Judge in his order dated 5-6-1997 noticing that the Registry had no, found the case to be urgent had directed the writ petition to come up after vacations upholding the report of the Registry. The learned Single Judge and observed that "I have searched the entire record in vain to find out the reason which persuaded the learned Senior Vacation Judge to view that the matter was not urgent. If one delves into the record of the case on hand one would find that it does not contain any report or any finding by the Additional Registrar (Listing) or any Officer Incharge of his office to come prop to the basis that the matter is not urgent It Was found by the learned Single Judge that the approval by the Senior Vacation Judge of the oral finding/report given by the Registry that the matter was not urgent could not operate as an impediment in the way of the Court to take a decision and pass appropriate orders in the matter if approached by means of an application.
30. It is therefore, obvious that the order passed by the Hon'ble Senior Vacation Judge on 5-6 1997 was not taken to be an order determining the question as to whether the case requires immediate attention of the Court. 1 he aforesaid order dated 6-6-1997 did not contain any reasons It simply upheld the report of the Registry which report was not found by the learned Single Judge to form part of the record The very foundation on the basis whereof the order had been passed by the Senior Vacation Judge was missing. The order did not indicate that the question as to whether the case required immediate attention of the court as contemplated under Chapter V, Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court had been considered at all. In the aforesaid circumstances the learned Single Judge proceeded to treat the order of the Senior Vacation Judge to be purely an administrative order which could not come in the way of the concerned Vacation Judge functioning under the general or special order of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to consider himself the question as to whether the fresh case required immediate attention of the court or not and having found that it did the teamed Single Judge proceeded to pass the appropriate orders.
31. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment indicates that observations have been made there expressing an opinion that consideration of urgency in respect of civil cases and writ petitions by the Senior Vacation Judge under the order of the Chief Justice dated 22-5-1997 is an administrative function and any order by the Senior Vacation Judge singling different civil cases and writ petitions as non-urgent cannot fetter and stymie the exercise of discretion vested in the court under Rule 10 (1) of the Rules in relation to fresh matters allocated to it by the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. It was further observed that the exercise of the discretion and power by the court under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 is not subject to any generator specific order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Indicating further that what is subject to such order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice is the exercise of the administrative powers of the Senior Vacation Judge.
32. The learned Special Counsel representing the respondents in the present case has stated that in the case of the Committee of Management Deonagri Post Graduate College, Meerut (supra) neither the Chief Justice nor the Additional Registrar had been impleaded as parties. It has further been pointed out that the question in regard to the implications arising under the order of the Chief Justice dated 22-5-1997 and the validity or legality of the aforesaid order were not challenged. In fact there was no relief claimed by the petitioner to seek quashing of the order passed by either the Hon'ble the Chief Justice or that of the Hon'ble Senior Vacation Judge It has further been contended that taking into consideration the facts and the controversy raised in the aforesaid case the ratio of the decision could only be that an order passed by the Senior Vacation Judge based on non-existent material without any consideration of the question as to whether a case requires immediate attention of the Court or not without hearing the aggrieved party cannot come in the way of the concerned vacation Judge from considering the question himself as to whether the case requires immediate attention and on coming to the conclusion that it does pass appropriate orders thereon. The learned Special Counsel representing the respondent has urged that any observation made in the aforesaid decision touching upon the validity or otherwise of the order passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice or the validity or otherwise of the order passed by the Senior Vacation Judge exercising the jurisdiction vesting in the Chief Justice without affording any opportunity of hearing to either to Chief Justice or the Additional Registrar cannot be taken as a binding precedent.
33. It may be noticed in this connection that as observed by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of State of Orissa v. Sudhanshu Shekhar Misra and Ors., reported in AIR 1968 SC 647, a decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. The Apex Court had pointed out that it is not profitable task to extract a sentence here and there from a judgment and to build upon it,
34. As has already been indicated hereinabove an order passed by the Hon'ble Senior Vacation Judge on the application accompanying the fresh case seeking immediate attention of the Court may be of an administrative nature passed in the capacity of a Senior Vacation Judge exercising the limited jurisdiction delegated to him by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Such an order may, however, be an order passed in the capacity of a Vacation Judge determining the question as to whether a particular fresh case require immediate attention of the court or not. An order passed by the Hon'ble Senior Vacation Judge even in the capacity of a vacation Judge may not satisfy the requirement contemplated under Chapter V, Rule 10 so as to be treated as having determined the question as to whether the case requires immediate attention of the court. In case it is established that the Senior Vacation Judge acting in the capacity of a vacation Judge vested with the jurisdiction as contemplated under Chapter V, Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court had passed an order determining the question as to whether the case requires immediate attention in the negative, in that event the said question cannot be reopened by any other Vacation Judge on the strength of the special order passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 22-5-1997.
35. Considering the facts and circumstances and the controversy involved in the case of Committee of Management, Deonagri Post Graduate College, Meerut (supra) the petitioners in the present case cannot derive any advantage out of the stray observations made therein which are sought to be relied upon by them.
36. Considering the facts and circumstances brought on record and my conclusions indicated, herein above, these writ petitions are disposed of finally with the observations referred to herein above with a direction to the Registry of this Court to act accordingly.
37. As a consequence the reliefs, claimed by the petitioners shall stand refused.
38. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.