TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether a Division Bench could assume to itself the hearing of a matter and proceed to treat it as public interest litigation in disregard of the roster and allocation of work made by the Chief Justice; (ii) whether the Chief Justice has exclusive authority to assign cases to particular Benches and whether directions passed in such a manner were liable to be stayed.
Issue (i): whether a Division Bench could assume to itself the hearing of a matter and proceed to treat it as public interest litigation in disregard of the roster and allocation of work made by the Chief Justice.
Analysis: The allocation of judicial business in a High Court rests with the Chief Justice, who is the master of the roster. A Bench cannot, on its own, convert an unconnected matter into a public interest litigation and continue with it unless the matter is placed before it in accordance with the roster or any other direction issued by the Chief Justice. Such a course is necessary to preserve judicial discipline and orderly functioning of the court.
Conclusion: The Division Bench could not assume jurisdiction contrary to the roster or proceed by converting the matter into a PIL on its own.
Issue (ii): whether the Chief Justice has exclusive authority to assign cases to particular Benches and whether directions passed in such a manner were liable to be stayed.
Analysis: The Chief Justice's authority to allocate work flows from the scheme of the High Court and is reinforced by the statutory framework, including Section 51(3) of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956. Directions issued in breach of that allocation were therefore not sustainable. In the circumstances, liberty could be granted to approach the Chief Justice for appropriate listing, and the impugned direction for personal appearance could be kept in abeyance pending such course.
Conclusion: The Chief Justice alone could assign the matter to an appropriate Bench, and the impugned directions were stayed.
Final Conclusion: The proceedings were terminated by upholding the roster-based allocation of judicial business, granting liberty to approach the Chief Justice for appropriate listing, and protecting the appellants from the impugned interim directions in the meantime.
Ratio Decidendi: A High Court Bench cannot assume jurisdiction or convert a matter into a public interest litigation contrary to the roster fixed by the Chief Justice, whose authority to allocate judicial business is paramount for orderly administration of the court.
TaxTMI 
