High Court roster control and judicial discipline limit a Single Judge's power to question allocation, transfer, or bench constitution.

The Chief Justice of a High Court controls roster allocation and bench constitution under the constitutional and procedural scheme, and even a part-heard matter may be transferred to the Bench required by the Rules. A Single Judge cannot, in collateral proceedings, call for the record of a disposed writ petition, comment on its transfer or disposal, or issue contempt notice to the Chief Justice for exercising roster powers. Adverse remarks against former Chief Justices were also unsustainable where made without notice and on an incorrect factual premise about daily allowance and accommodation, so such observations were liable to expunction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Chief Justice of a High Court has exclusive authority to constitute Benches, allocate roster, and transfer even a part-heard matter to a Division Bench where the Rules so require; (ii) whether a Single Judge can call for the record of a disposed of writ petition, make remarks on its transfer and disposal, and issue notice to the Chief Justice initiating contempt proceedings for exercising roster and allocation powers; (iii) whether adverse observations made behind the back of former Chief Justices regarding drawal of daily allowance and alleged misappropriation of public funds were legally and factually sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the Chief Justice of a High Court has exclusive authority to constitute Benches, allocate roster, and transfer even a part-heard matter to a Division Bench where the Rules so require.

Analysis: The constitutional and statutory scheme placed the distribution of business and administrative control of the High Court in the Chief Justice. The Rules of the Rajasthan High Court required Judges to sit alone or in Division Benches as allotted by the Chief Justice, and also empowered the Chief Justice to direct that cases ordinarily heard by a single Judge be heard by a larger Bench. The fact that a matter was part-heard did not denude the Chief Justice of power to transfer it where the Rules demanded hearing by a Division Bench. Judicial discipline required puisne Judges to act only within the roster fixed by the Chief Justice and not to assume jurisdiction by their own choice.

Conclusion: The Chief Justice had the power and jurisdiction to transfer the part-heard writ petition to a Division Bench, and the Single Judge had no authority to resist or question that administrative allocation.

Issue (ii): Whether a Single Judge can call for the record of a disposed of writ petition, make remarks on its transfer and disposal, and issue notice to the Chief Justice initiating contempt proceedings for exercising roster and allocation powers.

Analysis: Once the writ petition had been disposed of by a Division Bench, it ceased to be a pending part-heard matter. Calling for its record in an unrelated criminal revision petition had no judicial necessity. The comments made on the transfer and disposal of that writ petition were unrelated to the matter before the Single Judge, trenched upon the propriety of co-equal and superior judicial functionaries, and were made without jurisdiction. A judicial order passed by the Chief Justice in exercise of statutory powers could not be treated as contemptuous, and a Judge of a Court of Record acting within jurisdiction is protected from such collateral attack. The notice issued to the Chief Justice was therefore wholly misconceived and beyond jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Single Judge had no authority to call for the record, make those remarks, or issue contempt notice to the Chief Justice; all such directions were illegal and liable to be quashed.

Issue (iii): Whether adverse observations made behind the back of former Chief Justices regarding drawal of daily allowance and alleged misappropriation of public funds were legally and factually sustainable.

Analysis: The remarks were made without notice to the affected persons and thus violated natural justice. On facts, the assumption that the Chief Justices had drawn Rs. 250 per day during the relevant period was incorrect, since that rate came into force later, and the bungalow in question had been treated as a High Court Guest House under the control of the High Court rather than as free Government accommodation. The legal premise for restricting daily allowance was therefore not attracted. The conclusion that the conduct amounted to criminal misappropriation of public funds had no factual or legal basis. The observations were therefore unsustainable and deserved expunction.

Conclusion: The adverse remarks against the former Chief Justices, including the present Chief Justice of India, were unsustainable in law and on facts and were liable to be expunged.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside in its entirety insofar as it related to the disposed of writ petition and the contempt notice, and the appeal was allowed while leaving the pending criminal revision to be decided on its own merits.

Ratio Decidendi: The Chief Justice alone controls roster and allocation of work in the High Court, and a Judge cannot, in collateral proceedings, question a valid judicial or administrative order of the Chief Justice or make adverse findings against other judges without jurisdiction and without due process.

---