Karnataka High Court
M S Poojari vs The Registrar General on 26 March, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA clncuifif' V. AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY or 210'i*o:: "
PRESEN THE HON'BLE 1\f£R,,HxII_JSTIAl'3l_E"i'I. Q"
THE HONBLE Mnumsncfi'V3,?-sHi:§E.NIvAsfi éow1)A Writ Petition 'No. if-S} BETWEEN:
Sri M.S.PocijHIi..""w V. it --. .
Aged about S/o S1*i'So'maiine "
Working as Pi-?:on__ .
Office of the Civiidsucige (Senior Division} .
Bagaikot L "
E {By VV;RH.Datar, Advocate} RegistfAé'1~3 Géiierai High.._Cou_rt ofliiamataka g Bangaiofe, V' Dxistrict and Sessions H 'Jud-g¢A--'
-- Bijiiapur " District and Sessions Judge '. ' Bagalkot District Bagaikot ... Petitioner vs UNION or INDIA AND OTHERS (AIR 2001 so apex court has held that the power to frame . the Chief Justice for administrative control.ovevr..:dist'ribt1tioIi K "
of judicial work of the court. It hasyinothinig ;h.{_)W:',€£A Judge is placed judicially in .de~a_ling Vivivth cases'v'h'1isted before him as per roster. Vifhen a casebposted atgludge for hearing as per roster, to be heard by him', depending on his judicial side on the questionhfiirhethier to decide the matter listed roster. It is in this backgro_un.d-- .ti1e-'writ petition on merits, it is necessary hear'--theA'pre1iminary objections as it raises the ques€;iori..of ju"ri.s_dictiori of this Bench to decide the writ jxmerits. Therefore, the preliminary points that 'arise fo1'~vcfonsideration are as under:
(1 . 'Whether this Bench has thejurtsdtctton to i decide this writ petition in the light of the circular dated 05.06. 2006'?
{2} Whether the circular dated 05.06.2006 is ultra wires and liable to be quashed? L exercise of original jurisdiction Appeal shail be heard by a single Judge of a High Court if the value in civil matters is .less than Rs. 15,0O,O.0M.(}"',.7 criminal matters if the offences are not death or imprisonment for life. it for the hearing of the Appeals Judge, Section 9 confers "
residuary powers. It reads as _ 'h i i "9. Other aiiouzers. 3 a': Judge:
The powersvof the to the following "Eve exerci§e'd=by a singie Judge, p'rooVidednv5.thdt3:'§Vthe'Judge ihbuefoire whom the mattezf may adjourn it for being hec1r4dirand-- deterrriir';ed by a Bench of two Judges» ' i : determiniriigiivin which of several 1 having jurisdiction a suit be heard ,-
Viii} iddrnission of an appeal in forma V 1' pauperis ;
under any law for the time being in force;
(iv)
(v) {vi}
(vii) appeals under rule 1 of Order XLHI A' of the First Schedule to the Codewofr 3 -1~ Civil Procedure, 1908 .' appeals in which "I:'1e"'._su'bject_V._V'"' matter is as to costs only ;
any character in lappeals and other proceedings} it 'A it admission Qfan.' a;;péCl1§:I7_l;--"E'Sented ' . C after A the V_ 'of the period {viii} :1 falloaaed the lirnitation ;
_exerciseA"'of- powers conferred by Section 439 and % of the Code of i - VCC_rin1ina.l"bllProcedure, 1973 [Central ~ fgicr of 1974);
' exercise of powers under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. {x}
(xi) 1908, or under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Central Act 2 of 1974};
» appeals from interlocutory orders, where such appeals are allowed by law.
1'/or
(xii) exercise of powers under.~ [(1) Clause (1) ofArticle 226 ofiihe::j--'~i'ij'\_ "' '' Constitution of India" < where such Iznpowier' ..re1__at'e's 'V the issue ofjat'--.u3r'it in._th,e«. C' nature v-cor .
(19) Articles 223. the C_o'nstitution cgi .:'n,éi'i-cl:
12. also exercise powers under yvclausetw :'Arti<::ie-iV22.6.'of the Constitution of India except Where isuch'Vp'owef"re1ates to the issue of a writ in the natuju::~o_f 'corpus under Articles 227 and 228 of the .""Coi9istiti;itiofi.~__ Section 4 of the Act provides for an intra reads as under : --
'*4; ' ~.aippeals from decisions of a singgg Judge of the High Court: An appeal from a judgment, decree, order of sentence passed by C "so single Judge in the exercise of the original jurisdiction of the High Court under this Act or under any law for the time being in force, shalt ...Againit is stated at para 95, as under: 16
lie to and be heard by. a Bench consisting of two other Judges of the High Court".
13. The Full Bench of this Court in the case KARNATAKA Vs. H. KRISHNAPPA AND 0THEf:§'S,, in 1975 11.12 1015, dealing with the it it Section 4 of the Act, heid at para Qftrcis A "Section 4 of the PIitjtireCourt---- it provides for appeals from " decrees and orders passedf the ."sin'gIe'~Judges in exercise of the or'igint1t_~'of__the High CA"'lC".":'j:.e_ of the High Court, in
e)Ee.rcise of Vthe':r;io'w_ers::'u.nder Article 226 of the Consiitutionqisr sttited by the Supreme Court tin State C3,'. Vs. Dr. Vyay Anand {AIR 1963 2946)', an jurisdiction though it is an original jurisdiction. Hence, it an appeal lies to a Division Bench of Court from an order of a single , J'.-td_'r1;e of the High Court in exercise of the it 'C ._poicers under Article 226 of the Constitution."
" It is true that Article 226, by itself, does net provide for an appeal from an order ;_. exercise of the powers thereunder. Nor__d'oes~ C"
prohibit expressly, or by neceis'sci:-1; it such appeal. In such a situatioriit"appears" to us that the rule enunciated by the Court in National James Chadwick, (AIR tt95ig.5c«..l35 7), " 'applies. There, the Suprelraielitiflourt approval the following enunctatioi1l".'bi;:' Vi-gcouhd_lfHaldane L.C., in .._c5a.';« 1VLtcl., Vs. Postnfws ter ('1-9.1 3.3.10. 54i3)'3"' if When' 'aZquesttoriv_is.stated to be referred to an estabishedw ..__l"wtthout more, it, in my opinion; irrrports._vthatl' the oriclinary incidents of the procedure of that Court are to attach and lalso that anijlmgleneral right of appeal from its 3 '* ttaecision, likewise attaches."
"Q5; same was the view expressed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in it .._Adaikappa Chetttar Vs. Chandrashekara Thevar {AIR 1948 P.C. 42}, wherein it was said:
"Where a legal right is in dispute and ordinary Courts of the country are seized of such dispute the Courts are govemed by ordinary rules of Justice or in accordance with his direction.
15. The question is, if the statute pro\.fidesVV'.:vifl4;i.;jhi~. matter is to be decided by a Single Judge and to S be decided by the Division Bench, it open' to ' Justice to constitute the Benches contrary? to theflules? We have three jud'g'r:1ii?_i1ts""of this 'Court on the said question, one of another of Full Bench consistingléof V'at'aother judgment of Full Bei1_ch--_c'onsis 'fi\l'e'vJudges. A 'Bench. Wthis Court in the case of Vs. "'15ADMAsE1'TY reported in ILR "v199"8l:K&R szsofazhiié answeiing the preliminary objection raised -- A,ef_{ect that keeping in View the mandatory pro'.,ris.lionvs.'contained in Section 6 and '7 of the Karnataka Covuirt Act, £961 and Rules 6 and 7 of the Karnataka "Court Rules 1959, it was not competent either on the Dart of the learned Single Judge or even the Hon'b1e Chief 24 Justice to refer the present appeal to the Full Benc'amfor'.,a final decision. The Court held as under:
"II. In the backdrop of the é statutory provisions, we are 'V the rival contentions toh two.
independent aspects, rianzely, ii): the ex'te'nt."c},f the adminis traiive power "53: the Chief ustice to allot judicial wo:'k..V_ of the 'i';I"j4*h"'r'CounA to the Judges sitting singblylfior and (ii) the jurisdictional vAccznpetenrcey_ ' jiidges to refer any to a, larger bench) =
12. " 'CS0 question is concerned, Rule of the Court Rules in unambiguous 5 --terrns confers' absolute power on the Chief V to " ----- ~ 'constitute benches and a.llot/'diisflbute judicial work amongst them. _ can be exercised only by the Chief A of the High Court and not by any puisne C judged or any bench comprise of them The C " 4_ provisions made in the said Rule has now been recognised by the Supreme Court as an absolute procedural law ensuring maintenance of judicial discipline and proper functioning of the High Court in the case of STATE OF 1/ 28 (Supra). "But it needs to be stressed here that the exercising of the said power by the Justice by deviating from the normal rule is on the regular practice of theWCourt_:'See._':g~1IR'=.:
1974 SC 2269, para 6) or the 'staiiutojry. rovisions mus s an es. reaso'n..an,d«. it objectivity since such exercise will be subject to mandates of'-arficle 214 the Constitution of Indiaywhich prohibivts the exercise of 'diiscrtminatory. arbitrary or mazg» 'always entitle thell'ji:j:1ggriéved "party remedy against fipproaching the appropiriate,_[o}*ilnL.7%"1"Jo judge of the High Court can claim inherent power to take cognizance pa1'tie'ular cause either on being ,._§lrnoz.:ed or':-suovlmoto unless it is assigned by the Vhchkicjfdustice Judge concerned. The extent _ the Chief Justice and that of the '-- A h ojvthe High Court has to be now treated ' authoritatively determined and clearly delineated. But it may be clarified that if any plearned Judge, either suo moto or on the basis it 'A of information coming to his possession, prima facie finds that any matter, not concerning the jurisdiction assigned to him, needs to be examined in the judicial side of the High Court, 2 Benches and allotment of judicial work, and Rule 7 of ChapterXV along with Article 225 eff) 3-- Constitution of India, it is evident . Chief Justice is the scaled" "authority constitution of Benches work among his brotfientfudgeslllof
45. Therefore, jjfitzblic. interest litigation writ teatime .iI9t,folrevlh. ptutston Bench instead :of'"a a sole all the the other BrothenvVJtidges,_d'w_ill. have no power or j'an;sdiction*t_o.entertain any petition, telegram or 'letter or-_al'.ca::ze'l' on their own unless the subject - allotted to them Hence, the . ifietitioners cannot contend that the writ it be heard for admission and aisposgedlv off as it is not tenable. If the said cor:-te'ntion is to be accepted it will lead to " negation of the judicial restraint and judicial discipline.
48. By reading Section 8 and 9 together it is manifest that the learned single Judge can dispose of revision petition pertaining to civil dominated and public interest litigation not in existence. Therefore, the cont_e'xiI1al interpretation has to be applied.
50. The public interest litigaticgn 'b special features distinguishable'=frorns"inter--: he Party lii79<1ti0n-
52. The Apex Court hasfenlarged spherevof the public interest to the inhuman prison conditions, of labour, right to speedy iegai-,-hid right to livelihood, 53:: .:fig.h't against polliltlbh, a right to be _prote::ted:'fro'2*n "' industrial hazardous, right to to basic needs etc., Thusghtlviegpubiich interest litigation is a special b " kind th'an._other.:
therefore, the important task of the Court is to ' to the affected persons in public litigation and to discourage projessional litigant to abuse the process of court under the grab of public interest litigation to selbserve his personal interest. Therefore, treating it as a special case keeping in view the vitality of its nature, posting before the Division Bench cannot be said to be arbitrary E 14/, 34 prerogative of constituting Benches and allocating work. But, none of the decisions deal with the question of B" quorum, that is the minimum number ofJu.dges'~.: i required to decide each type of "
83. The Writ ju:'is_diction_ iinder_Areii¢ie" 226 of the Constitution, aridrthe Appellate it revision jurisdictions under tithe' " Codes B' of .,,Civil and Criminal Procedure, 'co'nfe'rTed on the 'High Court' and no_t_on_Varig or Bench of no statute or Rules matter, tail Appeals, P3evision$Wg,n.oi'~Writ_TPetitions have to be heard disposediwof me entire Court. Having 'rega.rd.,to'vthe 'nu1~nber'Kof cases filed and the time requiredV'to;..hear',them, it is not feasible, for the Court tomsit together for deciding ail the 4Vi'He}_;ce, it is necessary to distribute the " . H ivork of the High Courts to Benches of two. Jiidges and single Judges, depending on the comparative seriousness of different category of cases, This requires exercise of three H administrative functions [{2} fixing a quorum or minimum number of Judges, required to decide different categories of cases: (19) Constitution of Benches, that is the number of Benches of Two _)(/.
Judges and number of Benches of single:
Judges, required for deciding the cases;_.u--ndA"'--. C"
deciding who will sit in the Benches-'raj « Judges and single Judges and will Full Benches. {c} allocation of -to , "
each of the Benches wi*z_ili;._.Division or Judge. These three functions relating audio": the practice and procedure of are parts of the power of _
18. :Aftetj_ theiih/lysolre High Court Act 1884, High Court of Mysore Rules 1959 High court Act of 1961, the Constitutional in particular referring to Secti.c_§>'r1'V.of the"'Act,V it vxras held as under:
it "<S'bZii;tfi'..44A';9.rescribing the quorum is a matter :'i;'Q:_:praCtiCe and procedure of the High Courtjlzliing under 'administration of justice'. It 125 "not' 4a matter falling under "constitution and A. , J Organisation of the High Courts' which is within it jfjexclusive power of the Parliament under Entry 78 of List I; nor is it a matter that affects any power of the High Court or the Chief Justice conferred under the Constitution. The Supreme it/..
Court in STATE OF BOMBAY vs NAROTTAMDAS [AIR 1951 SC 69] observed thus:
"Where there was no separate pro1_.ri;i;--ion:l authorising the making of laws with respec:t~.of . jurisdiction and powers of Courtsdand 'therefore_u,_S'V"
the authority -- to make laws iv'.ith:'respectto. the , " A jurisdiction and powers"'---pf Court, necessity to be found. in rivordjs "administration of justice" 'if j' be ' urged that jurisdiction andpoivefishiivofhhhtfourtshave to be spelt out of the-wordsg"ifadrninistration of justice"
'PrescribingrQ;ftiiew~t1uon,Lm and prescribing the 'powers. ~_ofI_singK'le Judges and Division Benches always been done by the llegurlature everwsince 1884 in the State and it it nev_ef'_part of the prerogative of the Chief The quorum is regulated by special statutes vh"'~«_.or by the provisions of the Karnataka High W Court Act, 1961. Several Statues providing for Appeals or References, specify the minimum quorum For example, Section 26013 of the Income Tax Act 1961 requires an Appeal filed if Bench of two judges.
88.2. Section 6 of the said Act 8 that all Second Appeals shcfll""be,he'ard,. ' disposed of by a single Judge of theslfligli.Cor:irt. ' Section 8 provides thatwany Jud_c3e'o_f Court sitting alone, shall"*vslfta*L1e power 8 and dispose of civil and revision' in exercise of the vre:ni£;ion&al_bbvested in the High Court. Sec'iio_n hmatters where the re_aL_lis"edVA'i;s'"_:one, 'that is, the matters» ofthe Court can be exerctserlgby ta Relevant portion Sectwltilnlltlis below:
l'o'we'r Judge: The power of A. the Court relation to the following _ shdll' bgaxerczsable by a single Judge, 8 * --. __1)rovided'*--that the Judge before whom the matter for hearing may adjourn it for being heard" determined by a Bench of two 8 Judges.
8 it xx (1') to (xi) 8:. (xiii) xx omitted as not relevant.
{xii} Exercise of power under {a} Clause (1) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India except L4/.
40 special Statues or general Statute, the Chief Justice has no discretion to allocate a case to Bench with lesser number of Judges than;'_''the'.f_* ;. S prescribed quorum While it is the prerogative in the Hon'ble Chief Justice to" 'constitIJte"ft-he it Benches and allocate worki, the ..prerogati'veh' does not extend to fi2cing;.'_the quorum utyheasfevhiitl it has already been fixed under the Stat,uies;'_:
92. Sections '83 and" are enabling provisions Vltohichv the category of cases which can'*vbe" deal't_ utithgglafhiinimum quorum S fsifzgle Judgeliivandv 5 and 0 Qt. the enabling provisions which set~outA:_'t'he"ca'iegory of cases which can be dealt» withA'._va'«...r~nintmum quorum of two V._§:"{Dtvtsion'"Benches). It is no doubt true that the afnot than' does not precede the Judge' in Sections 6, 8, and 9, to cases which can be dealt by si-nglelfudge, though the said words 'not less iiaari' precedes the words 'two Judges', in it "~.Secti0n 5 of the H.C. Act and Section 259 and "A2608 of the Income Tax Act. The reason is obvious. The words 'not less than' if used before the words 'single Judge' will be meaningless, as there is nothing less than one. But Section 9 11/ reg 43 fixed, to (1 target' Bench. Therefore, the Notification dated 8-7-199? allocating s_e§.§iéA" *' Judge matter to Division Bench is valid. ~ , __ Therefore, the law is well sett1eei.L"'--i,The power:"'ot«4"ftieVV'Chief it Justice in regard to cons'ti.tutiori"of aridallocation of judicial work has nothirig to :.of quorum for hearing of casgg_~LIf ..foi' Iigftrirlg of cases by the statutory'v}:irovti's'ioris Chief Justice should fix the q1c1.orumT; as mandated in the statutory' "However, in the absence of any prohibition discretion refer any matter in and to' Wvhicha .quorfum has been fixed under the statute 'or"the .r_u'1es« toya larger Bench. This he has to do expressiy notification. Such a notification should specify thata sitigleétoudge matter will be heard by a Division Bench.
Euabsenee of such express stipulation in the .' "11otifi:eation. the said matter cannot be heard by a Division ' "Bench. In such matters the case has to be listed as per the L/.
44 statutory provision. In this context it is rieccssazlry-ig.'V'to carefully look into the impugned circuiar issuedg:
19. The impugned circular reeds as u11de§f:.. it HCE. 74 7/06 High Courtof Ka:rfz;1t;izcii.,..' 4' Bangalore, _ _ , Dated 5_f'*JuneV_2OO6.
' Horfble 'Chief JusticeV,h'as directed to post writ petitions thatt_fiIed:fbe»irig filed by employees of the "High: Court; subordinate courts and j__udic:iai chatlenging the orders passed by,Hoi1'b'e"Chief..J1§Lstice and the IjIon'bléIt_J;udges_ 'on --.administrative side before coiirt halt 4'rio'j.-1.' '--...Hon'b'le The Chief JLLStiCé" V also d:'.rected., V159 fwithdrau) such u.Jr'it' petitions already pending before Single V.Benche:;_Vand.'-- iovpost them before court hall no.2]. ' 2 if . 'vr.Therefore;"'the Assistant Registrars and S_ect1on"--.Officers of all pending branches on i_jL£d_icia1K.sid.e are hereby directed to post such bejbre court hail no.1 by getting , V prepared the second set of such cases with in-zirnediate effect.
By order of Hon'ble The Chief ' Justice sd/_ {AJZMURARI} Registrar Judicial 1-L/.
£6 But, it is not uncommon that the Chief Justice..._sittiiigiga.3 Court Hall No.1 also sits single. In the absenceioif direction in the circular directingjthe' to single"; Judge matter before a Division A. theC.'s,aid. cannot be read as the Chief "oftwo if Judges for hearing matters to the're.in..-7% Under Section 9 of the Act, all Article 226 of the Constitution of relates to the issue of a and Articles 227 are to be heard by a single tiudge. 'cirjctilariidoes 'hot prescribe the quorum of the Judgestt_o Therefore, in the absence of specifi.c words: in the circular allocating the matters 1'ef3_',i'I'ed_At.'). iifthe circular to a Division Bench, the Division "Benc_h ha's._ jurisdiction to decide a matter which exCli1siVely'fal1s within the jurisdiction of a single Judge. iVgV.C'i'11.e.Chief Justice in the said circular has not allocated single ghiudgelf matter to Division Bench. it is the High Court OffiC€
-»X*«'15:1iCh is listing such matters before the bench of Judges. It it/i S0
38. What is, therefore, of signyicance is although in Article 235, the word "High "hf 5' has been used, in Article 229, the . Justice" has been used.
therefore, treats them as two:',se,tsaratellen,titievs in as much as "control. over. Su.bori*dinavte.,, Courts" vests in the Court admtnisiraxtion,»ri'vests: thell"Chie_lf
24. e:l'.;=.s"::; of SIPPE GOWDA .113. HIGH C0"URT:C3F reported in HR 2006 similar question held as under: « ' position of the Chief justice "th:e"_Constituiion is very clear and well 229 makes the Chief Justice of ttielflizjh Court the supreme authority in the A , rnatter of appointments of the High Court 2 ojficers and servants, which included the power it to suspend, dismiss, remove or cornpuisorily retire from service. The said power is the sole preserve of the Chief Justice and no extraneous executive authority can interfere with the L, exercise of that power by the Chief his nominee except to a very limited :"
indicated in the provisos. In conferring» « exclusive and supreme on tthe Justice, the object which the _ "
had in view, was to ensure-~inde_ve.nctence'Vof.ti'Le, High Court. Under the the Chief Justice. i's,_the the other Judges servants of the Highcourt no role to play on though in "
articlcé"V2"§_€':*:'e has been used,_"'the them as two much as control over subordinate ."Courts:"vests in the High Court 'administr'a.tion independently so as not to brook any interferencev from any quarter, not even ffoin his brother Judges who, however, can _ _ " administrative action or order on the side like the action of any other authority.
it Tlrierefore, the administrative power exercised by the * Justice is subjected to scrutiny on the judicial side by " "the High Court like any action of any other authority. While passing any orders on the administrative side, there is an },1/ .
obligation to follow the principles of natural justice'; the said order is challenged on the judicial'-.':sideA,:: M exercising the judicial power, it has~'to' bein"_4conto1niity~iiiritlic the principles of natural justice. it indispensable. , context it is necessary to principle .un.de'1::lVinirng: the "
concept of natural justice 7
25. Naturgd-d_iusticcrp a11other....name for common- sense justice. .::_"'Rule's. p"f3.'jna't'ura1justice are not codified canons. But, they .a'I'e_. principles ingrained into the conscience of :.:'Natnara]. justice is the administration of justice, in a'"'comm.on--"serise liberal way. Justice is based ' "'v-.substanti'a1ly. on natural ideals and human values. Natural u._justice of Article 14 of the Constitution. The principle_s'ot:_ natural justice are those rules that have been *..laid dowiri by courts as being minimum protection of the of the individual against arbitrary procedure that may i adopted by judicial, quasijudicial and administrative authorities while making an order affecting this right. These rules are made to prevent such authorities from doing injustice. In a broader sense, natural justice simply "natural sense" or "what is right and : ' in its technicai sense, it is now oftenequated'
26. Over the years; by agij1:ocess:;'.iAof"
interpretation two rules have evoived asjhvrebgiesdenting the principles of naturaI::]ii«stic:E»~i"1'q_ processfiinciuding therein quasijudiciai 'grocess. They constitute having their roots in the which is not the country but is shared in comrnoVn'-by first rule is 'nemo judex in cause_vsua'4"c-rb""nei:1oW;lébét esse judex in propria causa V, _'suci':'tl'iAa.t is,' 'no inaii"sha11 be a iudge in his own cause'. Yet anotlier-v.:foi:'rnis'-..'aliquis non debet esse judex in propria cagisa quiafibn potest esse judex at pars' , that is, 'no man ought to be a judge in his own case because he cannot A "as Judge and at the same time be a party.' The other form 'nemo potest esse simul actor et judex' that is, 'no one can be at once suitor and judge' is also at times used. 57 jurisdiction to determine judicially the parties.
29. In the case of he UNION or INDIA 32. omens {AIR iséol so i'sm, it is ._ as under:
'The real question. is not he~.w.as biased. It is difficult to probed of mind of a person, TherefQré,'--.w.hafVb to see is whe therf ~'th:s..;¢§§1' is reasonable' believing 4 that he .~!i--lcely:_V~C§5 =hai5e ::.'bee_n"'biased. We agree with General that a sujfficient. There pfiusi be cl' ~reasonLableV._.lilcelihood of bias. In decifiliqftg the of bias we have to take _; 'into corisideration human probabilities and ordiriary cours'e"of human conduct.' 30; V' the case of BHAJANLAL, CHIEF MINISTER.
ins. M/s JINDAL smzes LTD. & OTHERS be [x[v1'l99&4] SCC 19), dealing with 'bias' the Supreme Court has 'held as under:
'Bias is the second limb of natural justice. Primafaeie no one should be a judge in what is to be regarded as 'sud cause', whether or not he 1 L,/' 'an.
cnotification reads as under:
66
'WI'it petitions are concerned. it is governed Proceedings Rules of 1977. However, Rule H High Court of Karnataka Rules applicable. to it also. It provides that the provision'sV'oi_tlt1e Kamataka Rules, 1959, the tnadehbya the of " 1 Karnataka under the Karnata.lr.a."pvCoi1rt and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and' the Code of Civil Procedure, l908_:'was applied may be to proceedings and the writ appeals in__VrespVe'ct;lr1of _ma_tte_rs for.__Which no specific provision is made Eindei' the i'R;nles,.< '
38. _, _1nl"§'~J:.1V':Sluan=:e of the resolution of the Hon'b1e Full dated 15.11.2008 directing that the interim also to be counted for disposal as V _ Misc'ellan._eous'; cases, the notification came to be issued. The Lost 68 Absolutely there is no justification to alter the said That can be done only by amending the rule andriotv V' of circulars contrary to the statutory 'p1*ovisio_ns,il 'in'4faetl_flhe., existing practice of numbering in't.erlocutory-- _applicatio.ris..
consecutively in pending procleevdings veryheVlp'§u'I;'"it "does * V not lead to any confusion and....jt:g"causes no'-ineo_nlVenience either to the litigant or to or" In substance, these interlocutory e.pplicatior1:saree._not.'. rniscellaneous cases as provided under T .
40. C' High Court nines deals with petitions. ' V .
.._§jgglRule 1 re'ad_s as under:
matters not being of an interlocutory '1C.l'l4C:tFtiClféT,V.:~0fher than appeals and references, presented to the High Court for the first time it gshnilhvbe designated as petitions which will be classified as follows:
Civil Petitions in civil matters and Criminal Petitions in criminal matters, petitions invoking the courts revisional jurisdiction of powers being called Civil Revision Petitions or Criminal 70 From the inception in the High Court of Karnataka, when an interlocutory application is filed in pending proceedtngsflt; is registered as an interlocutory application proceedings and given a number as LA. No," c_ase'." This is the practice prevailing in this court; years. 'Cursus curise estlexgecurisei-p-- practice-".l.of 'th'e c'ourt is the law of the court. WhereKa"lpractice_iseexisting, it is convenient to adhere to it, because:4it'lis.pthe practice. The power of the court over its goviVr1Vpro_eeVss>.:'islmaiimited. It is power incidental"t:o:_'a3l OF INCOME TAX .fi;..AR.--H.pAt£=:r;jH<:r'»,oAtt§r1..9'74 so 2269). In this regard it is usefullltoll refer = l observation of this Court in Narasirnha Setty'7.s:case: referred to supra where it is held as ,unde1':" . it A it needs to be stressed here that the v_ of the said power by the Chief ~ vofttstiee by deviating from the normal rule based 'Hon the regular practice of the Court (See AIR 1974 SC 2269, para 6) or the statutory provisions must stand the test of reason and objectivity since such exercise wiil be always subject to mandates of Article 14 of the pmmil 73 Chapter VII of High Court Rules, 'u':0j:ldv accordingly it is quashed.
List this matter before; the' «c:ppro;3rlcite_ according to ros ter, The High Court is dtrecteclvnito lrenumber all the as tnterlocutory applications' in. tithe consecufivelu Chopter X of the High :CoU_._rtRulés, ._uJhftch"a:'e so humbered in pursuance Hof the rd§i'te:§l"'G8. 1' 2. 2008. Sol/~ oooooo JUDGE sat/~ ESDGE