DILIP B BHOSALE,J - (1.) A Division Bench of this Court, finding it difficult to agree and concur with the observations 2. The Full Bench, vide its order dated 28.04.2014, formulated the following question on the request and with the assistance of learned counsel appearing for the parties: "Whether a Judge of Hon'ble High Court sitting alone or Judges sitting in a Division Bench hearing any matter in his/their determination assigned by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, can overstep into the determination of another Bench, if any issue or question arises in the matter including a question in public interest, which is not connected to the matter before him/them, and which in his/their opinion is necessary to be decided, and further in such case where in his/their discretion it is necessary to decide such question, what should be the procedure to be adopted."
(2.) It appears from the order dated 28.04.2014, that the Full Bench also invited members of the Bar who were interested to assist the Full Bench. Accordingly, the Oudh Bar Association entered its appearance through its President and sought time to assist the Court. One Shri Ashok Pande, Advocate, also made an application, supported by his affidavit, for intervention. Insofar as the oral request for intervention of the Oudh Bar Association is concerned, it was allowed. However, it was clarified that the intervention application of Shri Ashok Pande was not being considered then. The Full Bench also requested Shri Ashok Pande to consider the deletion of paragraphs 14 and 15 of his affidavit. Thus, the matter is now before this Full Bench.
(3.) It would be relevant and necessary to note the background facts that occasioned the reference to a Larger Bench. When the writ petition (Writ Petition No. 2599 of 2014) was placed before the Division Bench presided over by Sunil Ambwani, J., separate applications, bearing C.M. Application Nos. 38165 of 2014 and 38166 of 2014 filed by the Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited (for short, 'UPRNN') were also placed before the Bench, for expunging the remarks/observations made in the order dated 01.04.2014 passed in the writ petition and for recalling the said order, and so also for seeking permission to intervene in the writ petition. An application, filed by the State of U.P., supported by the affidavit of Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, with similar prayers was also placed before the Court. The Division Bench, after having gone through the order dated 01.04.2014, passed by another Division Bench presided over by Uma Nath Singh and Zaki Ullah Khan, JJ. and after hearing learned counsel for the applicants, found substance in the contentions urged on their behalf and in paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 10 of the order dated 16.04.2014 made the following observations, which occasioned constitution of the larger Bench which formulated the aforestated question for its opinion: "5. We have gone through the order passed by the Division Bench on 1.4.2014 and find substance in the contention of Shri Jaideep Mathur that there were no allegations in the pleadings nor there were any prayers made in the writ petition with regard to any larger enquiry to be made, in the matter of constructions and other financial matters in award of contracts, relating to construction of the new High Court building. The writ petition was filed for quashing the FIR dated 15.3.2014 registered vide Case Crime No.59 of 2014 under Sections 353, 323, 504, 506 and 427 IPC at Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow and for issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the police authorities from arresting the petitioner. This Court after summoning the officers of the Metro Rail Corporation, Senior Superintendent of Police, Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd, who had no concern with the allegations, has made certain observations which are injurious to reputation of the agency and its officers. The observations and suggestion of investigation of the matters relating to allegations that only such contractors and sub contractors are being given jobs, who are related to people in power, be it executive or judiciary, create strong ground of suspicion about the quality of construction of new High Court building as well as the buildings of subordinate judiciary, already constructed or are still under construction at various places in UP, have no connection with the matter for quashing a FIR which was brought before the Court. 6. We also do not find that any prayer was made or any material was available before the Bench to consider as to whether the investigation shall be given to any independent agency or the CBI and further there could be no reason as to why the orders on such enquiry for which no prayer was made by any person appearing in the matter were reserved. 7. We also find that there are some insinuations and remarks in the order with regard to Committees of Hon'ble Judges of the Court, which have been entrusted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice the task to look after the quality of constructions. 10. We are of the view that on the facts and special circumstances placed before us we following the judicial discipline and traditions of the Court and the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Neeraj Chaubey and others (supra) it is appropriate to refer the entire matter to Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench to hear and decide the writ petition. The larger bench may formulate the question as may be necessary to be decided by it. The registry will place the entire record of the case before Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders, forthwith and latest by tomorrow for appropriate orders. " (emphasis supplied) ;