- (1.) BY this application dated 20-9-1993 a prayer has been made to withdraw the order dated 13-9-1990 and to fix some other date (for hearing) after 30-10-1993,
(2.) TO appreciate the point involved in deciding this application it will be necessary to mention a few facts. On 9-7-1993 the following order was passed by us in this appeal. "Sri G. S. Chaturvedi and Ms. P. L. Shahni stated that they have no instructions in this case and to the best to their knowledge Sri Jagdish Singh Sengar has to argue this appeal. As the cases of Sri Sengar are adjourned up to 30-8-1993, list this case on 31-8-1993. Thereafter on 31-8-1993 this case was listed before us. The following order was passed on that day. "The cases of Sri Jagdish Singh Sengar are reported to be adjourned till today. List on 13-9-1993." When the case was listed on 13-9- 1993 the following order was passed. "On 9-7- 1993 this case was directed to be listed on 31-8-1993 again this case was; directed to be listed today. That is how the case is on the list. The list has been revised. Still no one is appearing on behalf of the appellants. It is obvious that the appellants do not seem to be interested in prosecuting this appeal, more so. as an order to release them has been passed by the High Court on 25-4- 1979 Under the circumstances we have no option but to direct that the bail granted to the appellants vide order dated 25-4-1979 is cancelled. The CJ.M. Etah is directed to get the appellants arrested immediately and report the Court about the compliance of this order. This appeal shall be listed as soon as the report of G.J.M, mentioned above is received " After the order dated 13-9-1993 the present application has been moved. On this application we passed the following order :- "List this application for order on 7-10-1993. Meanwhile the office; shall publish a notice in the cause list that any counsel who may wish may move submission on the point that if during the adjournment of the cases of a counsel by Hon. The Chief Justice, if that case is listed before any bench, can the Bench fix any date for hearing in the said case or not after the period of adjournment. Apart from the notice published in the Cause List learned Advocate General and the Secretary, Bar Association shall also be informed of the order and the learned Advocate General is requested to address this Court on the above mentioned point on that day. Up to 31-10-1993 the operation off the order dated 13-9-1993 shall not be given effect to." On 7-10-1993 Sri Jagdish Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the appellant informed, the Court that he had been asked by a few of his friends to get the "hearing on this application postponed till 11-10-1993. Acceding to that request the application was posted for hearing on 11-10-1993. Sri J. S. Sengar learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Shambhu Chopra and also Sri Jagdish Tiwari learned counsel for the State alone have addressed the Court on this application After hearing the learned counsels mentioned above we have carefully considered the aspect involved in this case. The question involved in this application is that during that period when the cases of the learned counsel are adjourned by Hon. The Chief Justice, if any case is listed before the Court, whether the Court has jurisdiction to fix a date in the said case after the period of adjournment is over on not.
(3.) SRI J. S. Sengar learned counsel for the appellant has contended that if the case of a counsel had been adjourned by the order of the.Hon. Chief Justice then the case could not be listed before the Court at all. His further contention is that if by mistake the case is shown on the cause list before any particular court, all that the Court can do is to make a note that the case could not be brought on the List during the (sic) adjourned by the Hon. Chief Justice, In other words his contention is that on the date of such listing the court has no jurisdiction to fix any date in the case even after the period of adjournment of the cases of the learned counsel is over. In support of his contention Sri J. S Sengar has placed reliance on following provision' of the Rules of Court :-Chapter V Rule 1 :- Constitution of Benches:-Judges shall sit alone or in such Division Courts as may be constituted from time to time and do such work as may be allotted to them by order of the Chief Justice or in accordance with his directions." Thereafter Sri Sengar referred to Rule 2 of Chapter V .-Which says that except as provided by these Rules or other law, the cases mentioned thereafter should be heard and disposed of by a Judge sitting alone. On the strength of these Rules, !Sri Sengar states that allocation of work is a statutory function of Hon The Chief Justice, in as much as, these rules, which are framed by the High Court in exercising of powers conferred by the Article 225 of the Constitution have a binding effect on all the Courts. We hardly dispute the proposition put forth by the learned counsel.;