R.C. JAIN versus HIGH COURT OF PATNA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 179 · Decided: 23-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

R.C. JAIN 
v. 
HIGH COURT OF PATNA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 23, 1996 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 136-Special Leave Petition filed chal-
lenging the admission of Letters Patent AppeaH-PA disposed of by the High 
Cowt during pendency of Special Leave Petition-Held, as LPA disposed of 
SLP becomes infructuous. 
A 
B 
c 
Administrative law-Malafide, proving of-Letters Patent Appeal filed 
under directions of Chief Justice-Appellant questioning maintainability of 
Letters Patent AppeaH-PA posted before different Judges-Registry of High 
Court by an Office note sought directions of Chief Justice regarding fwther 
posting of the LP A-Office note enmzeously melltioning that LP A had been D 
filed by Appellant-Chief Justice Ordering LP A to be heard by the LP A 
Bench-Whether an allegation of malafide against Officers of the Registry that 
they misled the Chief Justice is sustainable-Held, on the facts, malafide not 
sustainable. 
Practice and Procedure-Disclosure to court regarding source of inf 
01~ 
mation-H eld : appellallt and counsel duty bound to disclose to Court, the 
source of their inf onnation-Refusal to do so in the instant Case-Held, 
reprehensible and improper. 
The appellant, a Distt. & Sessions Judge with effect from 22.9.88, was 
considered for extension of his services alongwith others, beyond 58 yrs. 
of age. The evaluation Committee held its meeting and thereafter the 
matter was considered by the full court which decided not to give extension 
E 
F 
to the appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High 
Court. The single judge disposed of the same with the observation that the G 
appellant may make a representation before the Chief Justice of the High 
Court with a prayer to place his case before the full cotrt for reconsidera-
tion. The Registrar General, pursuant to the orders of Chief Justice, filed 
Letters Patent Appeal against the decision of Single Judge. As per the 
orders of the Chief Justice, the matter was posted before a Division Bench. 
Objection seems to have been taken that the LPA was not maintainable as H 
179 
180 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
it was 11iled without taking permission from the Chief Justice. 
B 
c 
The Division Bench passed an order to the effect that the main-
tainability of the appeal shall be considered at the time of admission. 
Thereafter there was a change in the constitution of the Division Benches. 
On 4.4.96, on the note of the Registrar (Inspection), the Chief Justice 
ordered that the matter be placed before the Bench dealing with the LPA 
matters. On 5.4.96, the Div1ision Bench admitted the LPA and stayed the 
operation of the decision of Single Judge dated 14.2.1996. The next date of 
hearing was fixed on 3.7.96. 
The appellant challenged the order dated 5.4.1996 of the Division 
Bench by way of an SLP filed on 1.5.96 before this Court. In the said 
Special l.eave Petition it was contended that the LPA was filed without the 
permission of Chief Justice; that the then Registrar General and certain 
other Officers of the Registry were inimically disposed towards him; that 
the LPA was based on the misrepresentation contained in the notes of 
D Registrar (Inspection) date1i 4.4.96, a copy of which was filed by the 
appellant alongwith his Special uave Petition. 
E 
F 
G 
Having regard to the said averments, this Court issued notice to the 
Registrar General of the High Court and directed that the entire papers 
be placed before this Court. The Registrar General filed a detailed counter 
affidavit, :urging in particular, that the SLP has become infructuous in view 
of the subsequent events. 
Regarding the office note dated 4.4.96, the appellant's counsel was 
questioned as to how he was able to produce the said copy of office note. 
The counsel surprisingly refused to disclose the source of the same, instead 
vehemently stated that this court should call upon the High Court 
Registrar to explain. 
Dismissing the Appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. All that was attacked in the SLP was the order of the 
Division Bench dated 5.4.96 admitting the LPA. The final order passed by 
the Division Bench on 7.8.96 is not challenged. The Appeal was heard and 
final decision has also been rendered. In such circumstances the instant 
SLP has become infructuous. [183-C] 
H 
2. The appeal was filed only after obtaining the direction of the Chief 
R.C.JAINv. HIGHCOURTOFP.A~TNA(PARIPOORNAN,J.] 
181 
Ju

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.