Single Judge jurisdiction under Appellate Side Rules prevails over roster conflict for writ petitions under local tax law.

Writ petitions challenging orders of a quasi-judicial authority under a local sales tax law were required to be placed before the Single Judge under Rule 18(3) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. The roster fixed by the Chief Justice had to be read harmoniously with the Appellate Side Rules, and where any conflict arose, the rules framed under Article 225 of the Constitution prevailed. Because the proceedings did not fall within the exceptions in Rule 18(3), the office report placing the petitions before the Division Bench was overruled and the matters were directed to be listed before the learned Single Judge.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions arising from proceedings under a local sales tax enactment were required to be placed before the Division Bench under the roster, or before the Single Judge under the Appellate Side Rules.

Analysis: The writ petitions challenged orders passed by a quasi-judicial authority in proceedings under a local tax law. Rule 18(3) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 governs placement of writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 and includes orders of subordinate courts and quasi-judicial authorities in suits or proceedings under special or local laws, subject to specified exceptions. The roster fixed by the Chief Justice had to be read harmoniously with the Appellate Side Rules, and in the event of an irreconcilable conflict, the Rules framed under Article 225 of the Constitution of India would prevail. The proceedings did not fall within the excepted category under Rule 18(3).

Conclusion: The writ petitions were held to fall within the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge, and the office report placing them before the Division Bench was overruled.

Final Conclusion: The matter was directed to be placed before the learned Single Judge for consideration and disposal in accordance with the Appellate Side Rules.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a roster allocation is inconsistent with the High Court's Appellate Side Rules, the Rules prevail, and writ petitions covered by the specific Single Judge assignment must be placed accordingly.

---