Order passed in case listed without authorisation of Chief Justice is void: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently ruled that an order passed by a High Court Bench in a case not assigned to it by the High Court's Chief Justice, is without jurisdiction and thus void..The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Rajesh Bindal added that consent of parties for hearing such a case by the particular Bench will not alone vest the Bench with the jurisdiction to hear that case.“We hold that any order which a bench - comprising of two judges or a single judge - may choose to make in a case that is not placed before them/him by the Chief Justice of the High Court or in accordance with His Lordship’s directions, such an order is without jurisdiction. In other words, an adjudication, beyond allocation, is void and such adjudication has to be considered a nullity. It needs no emphasis that the Chief Justice of the High Court, being the primus inter pares, has been vested with the power and authority to set the roster, as articulated in Sohan Lal Baid (supra), and such roster is final and binding on all the ‘Companion Justices’ of the said court," the top court said..The Court was hearing an appeal against a judgment passed by a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court last year.The Division Bench of the High Court had passed the judgment on an intra-court appeal against a judgment of a single-judge of the High Court. The matter concerned the appointment of 48 persons on compassionate grounds to Kolkata-based defence shipyard, Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited (Garden Reach). The Division Bench had allowed the writ petition while deciding the intra-court appeal. This was despite the fact that the single-judge had in 2022 deferred hearing in the writ petition filed by such litigants to await the decision of a case pending before the Supreme Court on the issue of compassionate appointments.Garden Reach moved the top court to challenge the Division Bench's decision. .The top court questioned whether intra-court appeal against the single-judge’s order was maintainable at all.It said that the Division Bench could have only requested the single-judge to decide the writ petition in accordance with the law.It also held that the Division Bench was not correct in accepting the suggestion of the parties and agreeing to hear the writ petition without having any authorization from the Chief Justice.“A judicial order based on consent of the parties, which is in the teeth of the Writ Rules and seeks to unsettle and even override the determination made by the Chief Justice, could not have vested jurisdiction in the appellate court to hear the pending writ petition. As a sequitur, the Division Bench which passed the impugned order could not have assumed unto itself the jurisdiction to decide the writ petition based on the earlier order dated March 11, 2024. The Division Bench, without feeling bound by the said order, could and did have the jurisdiction to decline to hear the writ petition in the absence of any determination," the Supreme Court said. .The top court also found that the High Court's Division Bench did not have the roster to hear writ petitions under ‘Service (Group VI)’ of the Classification List appended to the Writ Rules since the Chief Justice had assigned such matters to single-judges.“On the face of such determination, neither the predecessor Division Bench nor the Division Bench of the High Court could have assumed jurisdiction to hear the writ petition premised on the legal position that they had jurisdiction to hear appeals from orders passed on writ petitions relating to Group VI,” the Court said..Thus, the Court set aside the Division Bench’s order and revived the writ petition before the High Court.“We request the Chief Justice of the High Court to assign the writ petition to an appropriate bench for its consideration and disposal, as early as possible, but preferably within six months from today, considering that the respondents have been waiting for their turn for compassionate appointment and the appellants have their own reasons for not proceeding with making such appointment resulting in a delayed determination,” it ordered..Senior Advocates Ranjit Kumar, Brijender Chahar, Nidesh Gupta and Ranjan Dey with advocates Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Sandeep Bisht, Yati Ranjan, Akash Dixit and Swati Bansal represented Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited.Senior Advocate Soumya Majumdar with advocates Swarnendu Chatterjee, Nilay Sengupta, Sujit Banerjee, Deepakshi Garg and Harshita Rawat and Shreekant Neelappa Terdal represented GRSE LImited Workmen's Union and Others..[Read Judgment]