Roster-based jurisdiction limits a High Court Judge's authority; orders made outside allotted business are void in law.

A High Court Judge can exercise judicial power only within the business allocated by the Chief Justice, and jurisdiction depends on valid roster assignment. Where a writ petition was not marked part-heard and the Judge was assigned only part-heard and contempt matters, the Judge could not entertain the application or modify the interim order. The impugned order was therefore without jurisdiction, void in law, and set aside, leaving the parties to seek relief before the proper Bench.

---

---

Issues: Whether the single Judge had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application and modify the interim order when the roster assigned to him covered only part-heard and contempt matters.

Analysis: The power to assign judicial business and constitute Benches vests in the Chief Justice under the constitutional and statutory scheme and is also recognised as an inherent power. A Judge derives authority to hear a matter only from such allocation. The record showed that the writ petition was not marked part-heard, and the order was passed when the Judge was assigned only part-heard and contempt matters. In those circumstances, the application ought to have been moved before the appropriate Bench, and the impugned order could not validly be made by the Judge who heard it.

Conclusion: The learned Judge lacked jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, and the order was void and without effect in law.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the parties were left to seek appropriate relief before the proper Bench.

Ratio Decidendi: A Judge of the High Court can exercise judicial power only within the business allocated by the Chief Justice, and any order made outside that allocation is without jurisdiction and void.

---