- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Heard Sri Arvind Tripathi, learned Additional Government Advocate, Sri S. F. A. Naqvi, learned counsel representing Union of India, respondent No, 4 and Sri D. S. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) ON 12-6-1995, the learned counsel representing the respondent-State had raised a preliminary objection to the effect that this writ petition praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus is cognizable by a Division Bench alone and cannot be heard and finally disposed of by the Single Judge nominated as a vacation Judge as contemplated under Chapter V, Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court. The present writ petition was admitted on 1-5-1995 by a Division Bench. Under its order dated 1-5- 1995 the Division Bench while granting respondents two weeks' time for filing a counter-affidavit and three days' time to the petitioner for filing a rejoinder affidavit, had directed that, the writ petition be listed for hearing immediately thereafter in the normal course after the previous cases have been listed, for hearing. On 5-6-1995 the present writ petition was listed before the vacation Judge. Under the order passed by the Vacation Judge dated 5-6-1995 the record of the case was put up before the Senior Vacation Judge who passed an order for the case being put up before Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. S. Chauhan. On 7-6-1995 when the case was put up before Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. S. Chauhan another vacation Judge he, however, passed an order that it was not possible for him to dispose of this case either on that or on the next date and in the circumstances the learned Single Judge directed that the file be put up before the Senior Vacation Judge for appropriate orders whereupon the learned Senior Vacation Judge passed an order directing that the file be put up before Hon'ble S. P. Srivastava, J. another Vacation Judge, on 12-6-1995. It is in these circumstances that the file of this case had been put up before me for disposal on 12-6-1995 on which date the preliminary objection was raised as noticed herein above. The provisions contained in Chapter V, Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court stipulate that criminal work of the court shall continue to be dealt with during the vacation by such Judges as may be appointed for the purpose by the Chief Justice who may also exercise original, appellate, revisional, civil or writ jurisdiction vested in the Court in fresh matters which in their opinion require immediate attention. These provisions also stipulate that such juris diction may be exercised even in cases which are under the Rules cognisable by two or more Judges, unless the case is required by any other law to be heard by more than one Judge.
(3.) SUB-clause (2) of Rule 10 of Chapter V of the Rules of the Court provides that subject to any general or special order of the Chief Justice, the senior most vacation Judge at Allahabad or Lucknow, as the case may be, shall in the absence: of the Chief Justice, exercise jurisdiction at Allahabad or Lucknow, as the case may be, in connection with the arrangement of Benches, listing of cases and other like matters. While providing for the exercise of the jurisdiction of a Single Judge the provisions contained in Rule 2 of Chapter V of the Rules of the Court stipulate apart from other things that the Chief Justice may direct that any case or class of cases which may be heard by a Judge sitting alone shall be heard by a Bench of two or more Judges or that any case or class of cases which may be heard by a Bench of two or more Judges, by a Judge sitting alone.;