Larger-bench reference under High Court Rules must arise from a judicial order, not administrative suo motu action.

Rule 5 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 permits a larger-bench reference only by a single judge or division bench in a pending matter, or on a question arising therein. Rule 6 allows the Chief Justice to assign pending matters to a division bench or special bench for roster purposes, but does not create an independent administrative power to make a suo motu reference. The reference power is procedural and must be exercised only in the manner the rule itself provides. Accordingly, an administrative suo motu reference by the Chief Justice is not maintainable; a larger-bench reference must originate from a judicial order in a pending matter.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Chief Justice, in administrative capacity, can suo motu initiate a reference to a larger bench in the absence of a judicial reference made by a single judge or division bench.

Analysis: Rule 5 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 contemplates a reference by a single judge or a division bench in a pending matter or in a question arising therein. Rule 6 empowers the Chief Justice to direct that any matter or class of matters be placed before a division bench or special bench, but that power is confined to roster and placement of pending matters and does not create an independent source for an administrative suo motu reference. The power of reference is a substantive procedural right and must be exercised strictly in the manner provided by the rule that creates it. The Court also distinguished other provisions permitting suo motu action, such as public interest litigation, contempt, Article 227, Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, noting that those powers are exercised judicially by the appropriate bench and do not support an administrative reference by the Chief Justice.

Conclusion: The Chief Justice cannot, in administrative capacity, suo motu constitute a larger bench reference under the Rules of 1993; such a reference must originate from a judicial order in a pending matter. The preliminary objection was upheld and the references were held not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings ended without adjudication on the substantive questions referred, as the Court confined itself to the threshold issue of competence and maintainability and declined to entertain the references.

Ratio Decidendi: A larger bench reference under the High Court Rules can arise only from a judicial reference made in a pending matter by a court acting on its judicial side, and not from an administrative suo motu action of the Chief Justice.

---