NIRANJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE necessity for this reference has arisen in these circumstances: A writ petition (No. 457 of 1973) was filed by M/s Bherulal and Company against the State of Rajasthan, the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and three others. THEre were several other petitions of a similar nature. Some of them came up for admission before Jain J. , on April 6, 1973 and were admitted by him. Mr. R. N. Munshi, who was then the Government Advocate, accepted notice on behalf of the respondents the same day, and the learned counsel for the petitioners were directed to supply copies of the writ petitions and the stay application to him. At the same time, interim stay orders were made and the stay applications were ordered to be taken up for hearing on April 16, 1972, on which date those orders were confirmed. Having regard to the urgency of the main cases, it was ordered that they may be listed for hearing on July 9, 1973 and the parties were directed to place the other material on the record by July 2, 1973.

(2.) ON July 4, 1973 Mr. R. N. Munshi filed an application (in writ petition No. 447 of 1973 and other connected petitions) under the first proviso to rule 55 of the Rules of the High Court of Rajasthan, 1952, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" read with sec 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application was addressed to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and it was prayed that, for the reasons mentioned in the application, all the connected cases may be ordered to heard by a Divisions Bench. Copies of the application were given to the other learned counsel. It came up for consideration before the Chief Justice on August 3, 1973. Mr. L. L. Sharma and Mr. S. M. Mehta appearing for a large number of petitioners had no objection to the hearing of the writ petitions by a Division Bench so long as that did not prejudice the application which they had made in the meantime, on July, 20, 1973, against Mr. R. N. Munshi and others for contempt of Court. Mr. M. M. Vyas and Mr. R. R. Vyas (who represented the petitioners in 8 out of 63 petitions) opposed the application on the ground that it was likely to create a bad precedent. The Chief Justice took the view that as the petitions affected the business interests of numerous private operators as well as the Rajasthan State Roadways Corporation which had purchased a number of vehicles already, the interests of justice required that, having regard to the stakes involved and the urgency of the matter, all the petitions should be heard by a Division Bench. In the meantime, Jain J. , had adjourned the hearing of petitions. The petitions were thus heard by the Division Bench and were dismissed on November 16, 1973. The propriety of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice dated August 3, 1973 was not the subject-matter of any controversy at all, in those petitions.

(3.) ART. 214 of the Constitution provide that there shall be "a High Court for each State". There can therefore be no question of there being two such courts exercising jurisdiction in a State. Apart from ART. 214, ART. 225, which deals with the jurisdiction of existing High Courts, makes it quite clear that - ". . . . . . . . the jurisdiction of, and the law administered in, any existing High Court, and the respective powers of the Judges thereof in relation to the administration of justice in the Court, including any power to make rules of Court and to regulate the sittings of the Court and of members thereof sitting alone or in Division Courts, shall be the same as immediately before the commencement of this Constitution. " The Constitution has therefore made it quite clear that (i) there is only one High Court in a State, (ii) it is that High Court which exercises jurisdiction in the State, (iii) the Judges of the High Court are members thereof and do not constitute separate courts, (iv) the Judges of the High Court exercise powers in relation to the administration of justice in the High Court, and (v) the High Court has the power, inter alia, to make rules to regulate its sittings and of its members sitting alone or in Division Court. The Judges are therefore members of the High Court and do not constitute separate Courts into themselves. They may sit "alone" or in "division Courts" for the purpose of transacting the business of the Court, in accordance with the rules of the Court, but that is a domestic matter of the High Court and cannot have the effect of creating as many High Courts as there are Benches. The Benches are in fact required to be constituted for no other purpose than to regulate the sittings of the High Court so that its Judges may be able to sit alone or in Division Benches, as may be necessary. A litigant or a party to a case cannot therefore claim to have any vested interest in any such Bench or Benches which, taken as a whole, are required by the Constitution to function as the High Court for the State.