Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a Calcutta High Court Division Bench judgment that had decided a pending writ petition on compassionate appointment while hearing an intra-court appeal against a mere de-listing order. Because the Division Bench had no roster allocation from the Chief Justice to hear such writ petitions, and consent of parties cannot confer jurisdiction, its order was void; the writ petition was revived for decision by a bench assigned by the Chief Justice.
Issues
- Whether a Division Bench hearing an intra-court appeal against an order de-listing a writ petition could, on the consent of parties, itself hear and decide the pending writ petition.
- Whether an order passed by a bench in a matter not allocated to it by the Chief Justice of the High Court is without jurisdiction.
- Whether an intra-court appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent lay against an order merely de-listing a writ petition.
Provisions considered
- Rule 26, Writ Rules of the High Court at Calcutta (framed under Article 225 of the Constitution)The Rule permits a Single Judge, for recorded reasons, to make a rule returnable before, or refer it to, a Division Bench. As the Single Judge made no such reference, the Division Bench could not hear the writ petition without authorisation from the Chief Justice. (¶¶ 6, 7, 9)
- Clause 15, Letters Patent of the High Court at CalcuttaThe Court observed that the de-listing order determined no rights and was not a 'judgment', so the maintainability of the intra-court appeal was debatable; even if maintainable, the appellate court could at most have asked the Single Judge to decide the writ petition. (¶ 4)
- Article 225 and Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe Writ Rules governing Article 226 applications are framed under Article 225; the Chief Justice as master of the roster allocates such matters, and the allocation binds all judges of the High Court. (¶¶ 6, 9)
Held
- The Single Judge ought to have decided the writ petition on the law then settled by the three-Judge Bench in N.C. Santhosh instead of de-listing it awaiting a pending reference; but since the de-listing order determined no rights, it was doubtful whether an intra-court appeal lay against it, and at most the appellate court could have requested the Single Judge to decide the petition in accordance with law. (¶ 4)
- Consent does not confer jurisdiction. A consent-based order of a Division Bench that runs contrary to the Writ Rules and overrides the Chief Justice's determination cannot vest the appellate court with jurisdiction to hear a pending writ petition, and a later Division Bench is not bound by such an order. (¶ 7)
- Where the roster gave the Division Benches only appeals from orders in Service (Group VI) matters, and writ petitions in that group were allotted to single benches, neither Division Bench could assume jurisdiction to hear the writ petition itself. (¶ 8)
- Following Sohan Lal Baid, Prakash Chand and Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms, an order made by any bench, single or two-Judge, in a case not placed before it by or under the directions of the Chief Justice is without jurisdiction; adjudication beyond allocation is void and a nullity. The Chief Justice's roster is final and binding on all companion judges. (¶ 9)
- The order of 11 March 2024 and the impugned judgment were therefore without jurisdiction and were set aside on that limited ground, without examining the merits. (¶¶ 9, 10)
Result
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside without going into the merits; writ petition revived and remanded, with a request to the Chief Justice of the High Court to assign it to an appropriate bench for disposal preferably within six months. The appellant's statement that no appointment would be made to render the writ petition infructuous was recorded, so no interim order was passed.