RAJIV RANJAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 26.04.2005 we had passed an order, the relevant portion of which reads as follows :

(2.) This portion of the order was passed by consent of all the parties. Now it is claimed by the applicant in Crl. MPs Nos. 5519-20 of 2005 that the order is not by consent. However, even in this application it is admitted that his counsel had not objected to this order. After consenting and/or in any case after not objecting submissions are made before learned Acting Chief Justice of the Patna High Court that this Court had no jurisdiction to constitute a Bench and that power to constitute Benches rests only with the Chief Justice. We deprecate this practice of a party obtaining an order by consent and/or not objecting to an order and then making contrary submissions before another forum. If the party had felt aggrieved the proper course was to immediately come back to this Court and get the order clarified by this Court.

(3.) As a contention is now raised, before the learned Acting Chief Justice, that this Court could not constitute a Bench, we clarify that the order reproduced above was at the behest of and with consent of all the parties. This Court had only requested the learned Acting Chief Justice to constitute a Bench. Undoubtedly the prerogative to constitute a Bench is with the Acting Chief Justice and the above order in no way expresses any lack of confidence in the Acting Chief Justice nor takes away his prerogative to constitute the Bench.