LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus PRAKASH CHAND AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1
j
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
v.
PRAKASH CHAND AND ORS.
DECEMBER 2, 1997
[DR. A.S. ANAND, M.K. MUKHERJEE AND
K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.)
Rajasthan High Cowt Rules, 1952: Rules 54, 55, 66, 73 and 74.
A
B
High Cowt-Chief Justice-Ad111i11istrative powers of-Cl1ief Justice C
transferred a parl-heard wlit petition ftvm a Si11gle Judge to a Division Be11ch
because Constitutional issues were involved i11 that writ petition-Writ petitio11
disposed of by Divisio11 Bench-Held : Constitution of Be11ches, providi11g of
roste1; transfer of cases, including pa11-heard cases, ft'Om the board of Si11gle
Judge to Division Bench for disposal on bei11g satisfied that the case i11volved
constitutional issues, is within the pre1Vgative of the Chief Justice of the High D
Coult-Single Judge or Division Bench cannot give any directio11s to the
Regist1y i11 that behalf-Puisne Judges ca11 only do that work which is allotted
to them by the Chief Justice or under his directions-If a11y Single Judge or
Division Bench co11siders a pa1ticular case to be listed before it, it may seek
appropliate orders from the Chief Iustice-Si11gle Judge has no auth01ity,
statutory or otllelwise, to call for the record of the disposed of wlit petitio11
while hea1i11g an imco1111ected criminal revision petition-Single Judge has no
authority to make comments 011 the maimer of trans[ er of the writ petition
and conduct of the counsel and the Bench in disposing of the w1it petition,
while they had no opportunity to reply to those aspersions or insinua-
tions--Such comments or insinuations are 1101 only uncalled for, unwanwtted
and unjustified but are also subversive of proper judicial discipline-Rajas-
than High Cowt Ordinance, 1949, Para 44---{;011stitutio11 of I11dia, 1950, Art
214.
F
High Court---Puisne Judges--Si11gle Judge made disparagi11g remarks G
against Chief Justice a11d Brother Judges-Held : Not merely a case of lack
of judicial restraint but it amou11ts to abuse a11d misuse of judicial auth01ity
and betrays lack of respect for the judicial institutio11 and amounts to con-
tempt of court.
High Court-Co11tempt of cowt-Sltow cause 11otice-Agai11st Cltitf H
1
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A Justice-Issued by a puisne Judg~Validity of--'Transfer of p01t-heard writ
petition from a Single Judge to a Division Bench because constitutional issues
were involved-Held: S.16(1) of Contempt of Courts Act does not apply to
Judges of Court of Record-Tra11sfer of part-heard writ petition valid-Hence,
directio11 of Single Judge to issue show cause notice to Chief Justice as to why
B co11tempt proceedings be 11ot initiated against him is misconceived, illegal,
without jurisdiction a11d unsustainabl~ontempt of Courts Act, 1971,
S.16(1}-Judges (Protectio11) Act, 1985.
Judiciary-Limitiltio11s of-Held: Judges of the Supreme Court or High
Cowt ca1111ot enter i11to a public co11troversy and file affidavits to repudiate
C any C1iticism or allegations made against them.
·
High Court Judges Travelling Allowances Rules, 1956: Para 2 (E)(ii).
Daily allowance-High Cowt Guest House-High Court Judge includ-
ing Chief Justice-Entitlement to draw full Deamess Allowance (DA}-Con-
D ditions for-State Govemment placed Guest House at the disposal of High
Court-Held : Stay of Chief Justice without payment of charges would not
amount to ''free lodging" at the expense of Central or State Govemnrent so as
to attract the provision of Para 2(E)(ii)-01ief Justices, therefore,' were en-
titled to draw their full DA at the relevant time--lnsinuations and observa-
1 E tions made by the puisne Judge against a f onner Chief Justice and fonner al
regarding draw al of full DA and non- payment of charges for occupation of
the Guest House were misconceived, legally unsound, factually incorrect,
procedurally untenable and improper besides having been made recklessly.
A writ petition was filed, as a Public Interest Litigation in the High
F
Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur by an Advocate of that Court, inter alia
seeking directions to provide suitable accommodation to the Judges of that
High Court and for certain other benefits for the Judges During the
proceedings of the writ petition certain interim orders came to be made by
Shethna, J. from time to time. Shethna, J. directed the writ petition to be
treated as part-heard at the 'request' of counsel for the parties. In the
G meanwhile, an Advocate filed an application for being impleaded as
petiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.