- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This is an unusual case. The observations, comments and allegations made and the order passed by a learned single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, Mr. Justice Shethna, in relation to a disposed of writ petition, by sending for its record in a totally unrelated and unconnected criminal revision petition, which have been put in issue in this appeal, touch not only upon the discipline of the High Court and the powers of the Chief Justice to assign cases and allot Benches but also the larger issue of judicial propriety. The order directing issuance of notice of contempt to the Chief Justice of the High Court raises a fundamental question about the jurisdiction of a single Judge to issue such a notice in the established facts of the case. It is not individuals but the prestige of the Institution which is at stake in this case. The mAnner in which "allegations" have been made against the Chief Justice of the High Court, the Division Bench of the High Court which had disposed of the writ petition and some of the former Chief Justices of the Rajasthan High Court, including the present Chief Justice of India, Mr. Justice J. S. Verma, has caused us much anguish. We wish we did not have to deal with a case like this but we shall be singularly failing in our duties to the Institution, if we do not deal with the matter and take it to its logical conclusion. First, some salient facts : Writ Petition No. 2949 of 1994 was filed, as a public interest litigation, on 9-9-1996 in the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur by an Advocate of that Court, inter alia seeking directions to provide suitable accommodation to the Judges of the Rajasthan 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. On 29-4-1997, Shethna, J. directed the writ petition to be treated as part-heard at the "request" of learned Counsels for the parties. In the meanwhile, Shri D. R. Bhandari, Advocate, filed an application for being impleaded as Petitioner 2 in that writ petition. He inter alia challenged the legality and validity of the constitution of a Bench of the High Court at Jaipur as also the order of the State Government declaring Bungalow No. A/2 at Jaipur as the Guest House for the exclusive use of the Chief Justice and Bungalow No. A/5 at Jaipur as the High Court Guest House. Certain other issues were also raised by Shri Bhandari in that application. Overruling the objections raised by the respondent therein inter alia, to the effect that the application of Shri Bhandari would widen the scope of the writ petition, the application of Shri Bhandari was allowed by Shethna, J. on 29-7-1997 and he was impleaded as Petitioner 2 in the writ petition. The case was then adjourned from time to time on being listed as part-heard before the learned single Judge. In the meantime, the roster was changed and Shethna, J. was required to sit in a Division Bench instead of sitting singly between 4-9-1997 and 12-9-1997. On 8-9-1997, the Additional Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan moved an application under Rule 55 of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (hereinafter the Rules) with the prayer that since challenge to the legality and validity of the constitution of a Bench of the High Court at Jaipur had been raised by Petitioner 2, Shri Bhandari, Writ Petition No. 2949 of 1996 should be referred to a Division Bench for hearing. By an administrative order, the Chief Justice directed, on 8-9-1997, that the application filed by the Additional Advocate General be put up for orders on the next day at 10-30 a.m. A judicial order then came to be made on 9-9-1997 by the Chief Justice, in the presence of all the parties to the writ petition. It was directed that the writ petition should be listed before a Division Bench of the High Court comprising Mr. Justice M. P. Singh and Dr. Justice B. S. Chauhan since it involved Constitutional question. When the writ petition was listed before the Division Bench on 10-9-1997, the following order came to be passed : "10-9-1997 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. P. SINGH HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B. S. CHAUHAN Mr. M. C. Bhoot, Mr. D. R. Bhandari and Mr. I. R. Chaudhary For the Petitioners Mr. L. S. Udawat and Mr. R. P. Dave For the Respondents Mr. M. C. Bhoot, learned Counsel for the petitioners, states that the relief sought for, in the writ petition, does not survive for consideration now. The writ petition has become infructuous. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. Since the main petition itself has been dismissed, the right of the intervenor to be heard does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the application filed by him is also rejected." Thus, Writ Petition No. 2949 of 1996 was dismissed as "infructuous" and, the proceedings in that writ petition concluded.
(3.) A Criminal Revision Petition No. 357 of 1997 was filed by one Prakash Chand, Respondent 1, herein challenging his conviction and sentence for an offence under Sec. 304-A I.P.C. This petition, as per the roster, was listed for admission and bail before Shethna, J. on 3-9-1997. It appears that preliminary hearing of the petition did not conclude on that date and the learned Judge directed that the revision petition be listed before him "along with other part-heard" cases on 5-9-1997, even though as per the change of the roster, he could not take up single Bench matters on 5-9-1997, since he was to sit in a Division Bench on that date. Shethna, J. directed the Registry to list those cases "on a separate Board". Since the Registry could not create a "separate board" for Shethna, J., without obtaining directions from the Chief Justice, the matter was placed for orders before the Chief Justice on 3-9-1997 itself. The Chief Justice directed :- "There will be no roster for Hon'ble Justice B. J. Shethna for sitting in single Bench on 5-9-1997. Those part-heard matters may be listed on some other day sometime next week as the business of the Court would permit with my specific order. Providing roster is the prerogative of the Chief Justice, which must be brought to the knowledge of the Hon'ble Judge." Despite the above order, Shethna, J. while still sitting in the Division Bench, on a mention made by the learned Advocate for the revision petitioner, passed an order on 8-9-1997, as a single Judge, directing that Criminal Revision Petition No. 357 of 1997 along with "other part-heard cases" should be listed before him "on a separate board" on 9-9-1997, knowing fully well that on that date also he was to continue to sit in the Division Bench and that no cases could be listed before him without appropriate directions of the Chief Justice. In view of the earlier order of the Chief Justice dated 3-9-1997 (supra) the Registry could not act on the directions of Shethna, J. and therefore, the Registry once again sought directions of the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice, it appears accommodated Shethna, J. and directed that the criminal revision petition and "other part-heard cases" be listed before him on a separate board. That was done.;