LexSTATE OF U. P. & ORS. versus NEERAJ CHAUBEY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 [2010] 11 S.C.R. 542 STATE OF U. P. & ORS. v. NEERAJ CHAUBEY & ORS. (SLP (C) Nos. 26922-26923 of 2010) SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] HIGH COURT: c Allocation of business - Held: Full Bench of the High Court has rightly held* that the Chief Justice is the master of roster - He has full power, authority and jurisdiction in the matter of allocation of business of the High Court which flows not only from the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of 0 s. 51 of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956, but inheres in him in the very nature of things - The Chief Justice enjoys a special status and he alone can assign work to a Judge sitting alone and to the Judges sitting in Division Bench or Full Bench - He has jurisdiction to decide which case will be heard E by which Bench - A Judge or a Bench of Judges can assume jurisdiction in a case pending in the High Court only if the case is allotted to him or them by the Chief Justice - Strict adherence of this procedure is essential for maintaining judicial discipline and proper functioning of the court - No departure from this procedure is permissible. F PUBLIC INTEREST LIT/GA T/ON: Entertaining of a matter as public interest litigation - In a service law matter, the writ petition was not listed before the G Division Bench of the High Court as per its direction - In reply to the show cause, in the affidavit filed by the officer concerned, problems faced due to lack of space were highlighted - The Division Bench directing the State Government to submit a status report about sanctioning of H 542 STATE OF U. P. & ORS. v. NEERAJ CHAUBEY & 543 ORS. funds for construction of High Court building complex - Status A report filed indicating the steps taken - High Court directing the senior officers of the State Government and the Central Government to appear in person on the date of next hearing - Held: Directions regarding construction of new High Court building and early sanction of required funds for execution of B the work cannot be faulted with - In fact, Lucknow Bench of the High Court needs a spacious building as early as possible - However, the Court expressed its concern about the procedure adopted by the Division Bench in an unconnected matter treating it as PIL and keeping the issue before the c same Bench - In case an application is filed and the Bench comes to the conclusion that it involves some issues relating to public interest, the Bench may not entertain it as a Public Interest Litigation but the court has its option to convert it into a Public Interest Litigation and ask the Registry to place it 0 before a Bench which has jurisdiction to entertain the PIL as per the Rules, guidelines or by the roster fixed by the Chief Justice - The Bench cannot convert itself into. a PIL Bench and proceed with the matter itself - State permitted to move an application before the Chief Justice of the High Court for appropriate directions - The impugned order directing the E officials to appear before the High Court on the date fixed - shall remain stayed - The instant order of stay shall continue till further orders to be passed by the appropriate Bench dealing with the PIL after the orders of the Chief Justice - Bar Association is free to move a writ petition as regards F construction of High Court building complex before the appropriate bench having jurisdiction over PIL. *Maya Dixit and Ors. Vs. State of UP. and Ors. [2010] 8 ADJ 631 (F.B.), approved. State of Maharashtra vs. Narayan AIR 1982 SC 1198; lnder Mani vs. Matheshwari Prasad 1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 400 = (1996) 6 SCC 587; State of Rajasthan vs. Prakash Chand & Ors. 1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 1 = (1998) 1 SCC 1; R. Rathinam vs. State by DSP, District Crime Branch, G H 544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R. A Madurai District, Madurai & Anr., 2000 (1) SCR 718 = (2000) 2 SCC 391; Jasbir Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 174 = (2006) 8 sec 294, relied on. Case Law Reference: B [2010) 8 ADJ 631 (F.8.) approved para 8 AIR 1982 SC 1198 relied on para 9 1996 (7) Suppl. SCR400 relied on para 9 c 1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 1 relied on para 9 2000 (1) SCR 718 relied on para 9 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 174 relied on para 9 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) Nos. D 26922-26923 of 2010. E From the Judgment & Order dated 16.07.2010 & 25.08.2010 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad L
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.