S. B. Majmudar, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal arises out of a Special Leave Petition moved by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through its Registrar having obtained permission from this Court to file the same against the judgment and order dated 6th November 1996, rendered by a division Bench of High Court of Allahabad. By the impugned order Rule 4(a) of Chapter XXXV-E of the High Court Rules, 1951, was declared to be ultra vires Article 215 of the Constitution of India in so far as the said Rule permits hearing of a petition alleging civil contempt in connection with breach or violation of an order, direction or judgment of a Bench of the High Court by a learned Judge to whom such work is assigned by the Chief Justice and who is other than the Judge or Judges who have passed the concerned order, direction or judgment. The learned Judges by their impugned order have taken the view that as the High Court is a Court of record as provided by Article 215 of the Constitution of India once a Bench of the High Court has passed an order or direction breach of which is complained of by the aggrieved party, the same Bench which has the record of the case must hear the Contempt Petition and in so far as the impugned Rule permits hearing of such Contempt Petition by any other Judge of the High Court, it flies in the face of Article 215 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, would be to that extentnull and void and inoperative in law,. Rule 4(a) of the High court Rules provides as under: "4(a). Every case relating to civil contempt shall be presented before the Bench of a single Judge constituted for that purpose. " At the outset it may be stated that it is indeed surprising how the Division Bench considered the merits of the question without issuing notice to the High Court on its administrative side through its Registrar for giving it an opportunity to defend this Rule as it was the author thereof. On this short ground it must be held that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as being violative of basic principles of the natural justice. But instead of resting our judgment on this short ground. we have thought it fit to decide the question of validity of the said rule on merits as the question raises an important controversy regarding the correct procedure to be followed by the High Court while deciding applications invoking contempt jurisdiction of the High Court in connection with civil contempt of its order and as the decision on this question will have a direct impact on large number of petitions pending in the High Court.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant High Court as well as learned counsel appearing for some of the respondents have contended that the aforesaid view of the High Court is patently erroneous. Respondent No. 1 who was the original applicant before the High Court invoking its contempt jurisdiction, though served, has not thought it fit to appear and contest these proceedings.;