Skip to content


Rameshwar Prasad Vyas and anr. Vs. Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Special Appeal Nos. 174 and 175 of 1970
Judge
Reported inAIR1971Raj75
ActsHigh Court Rules; High Court Orders; Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 - Sections 18; Rajasthan High Court Rules - Rules 61 and 63
AppellantRameshwar Prasad Vyas and anr.
RespondentDirector, Primary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner and ors.
Advocates: C.M. Lodha and; N.M. Lodha, Advs.
DispositionAppeals allowed
Cases Referred(Raj) and Man Industrial Corpn. Ltd. v. G. V. Dalvi
Excerpt:
- - (2) subject to any general or special order of the chief justice, vacation judges shall, in the absence of the chief justice, exercise jurisdiction as the case may be, in connection with the arrangement of benches, listing of cases and other like matters; so far as that question is concerned, i am satisfied that even as the original authority dealing with the writ petition the single judge could pass an appropriate order in exercise of the inherent powers of the court.kan singh, j. 1. the two special appeals against the judgment of a learned single judge of this court have been laid before me as vacation judge for admission. they raise the question about the powers of the vacation judge to entertain an appeal against the judgment of a single judge.2. section 18 of the rajasthan high court ordinance, 1949, which makes provision for appeals against the judgment of a single judge of the high court runs as follows:--'sec. 18. appeal to the high court from judges of the court.--(1) an appeal shall lie to the high court, from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a court subject to the superintendence of the high court and not being.....
Judgment:

Kan Singh, J.

1. The two special appeals against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court have been laid before me as Vacation Judge for admission. They raise the question about the powers of the Vacation Judge to entertain an appeal against the judgment of a Single Judge.

2. Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, which makes provision for appeals against the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court runs as follows:--

'Sec. 18. Appeal to the High Court from Judges of the Court.--(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court, from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the High Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence under Section 43 or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction) of one Judge of the High Court.

(2) Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore provided, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from a judgment of one Judge of the High Court made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the High Court where the Judge who passed the judgment declares that the case is a fit one for appeal.'

The marginal heading of the section as also the section itself speak of an appeal to the High Court from the judgment of a Judge of the High Court. In the very nature of things it is implied that the appeal under Section 18 of the High Court Ordinance against the judgment of a Single Judge is heard by a bench of two or more Judges. It is a fundamental principle that the appeal lies from an inferior authority to a superior authority and the original authority from whose judgment the appeal is taken is subordinate to the appellate authority to whom the appeal is taken. Though a Vacation Judge exercises some of the powers of a Division Bench he is all the same a Single Judge and as such normally he cannot sit in judgment over another Single Judge who is an authority coordinate to him.

3. Rule 63 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules lays down the powers of a Vacation Judge. It reads as follows:--

'Rule 63. (1) Criminal work shall continue to be dealt with during the long vacation by such Judges as may be appointed for the purpose by the Chief justice.

(2) Subject to any general or special order of the Chief Justice, Vacation Judges shall, in the absence of the Chief Justice, exercise jurisdiction as the case may be, in connection with the arrangement of Benches, listing of cases and other like matters;

They may also exercise the original and appellate jurisdiction vested in the Court in any miscellaneous matter or any civil matter connected with, relating to or arising out of, the execution of a decree, which may in their opinion, require immediate attention.

Such jurisdiction may be exercised even in cases which are, under the Rules, cognizable by two or more Judges, unless such case is required by any other law to be heard by more than one Judge.'

Sub-rule (1) enacts that criminal work shall continue to be dealt with during the long vacation by such Judges as may be appointed for the purpose by the Chief Justice. Sub-rule (2) lays down the powers to be exercised as regards the arrangement of Benches and listing of cases and other incidental matters. It also lays down that a Vacation Judge may exercise the original and appellate jurisdiction vested in the Court in any miscellaneous matter or any civil matter connected with, relating to or arising out of the execution of a decree, which may in the opinion of the Judge require immediate attention. The jurisdiction may be exercised by the Vacation Judge in accordance with the Rules even in cases cognizable by two or more Judges, but the limitation is that if by any other law a case is required to be heard by more than one Judge then the Vacation Judge cannot deal with such a case.

Rule 55 lays down what cases are cognizable by a Single Judge. Rule 61 lays down as to what cases are to be heard by two Judges. It provides that save as otherwise provided by these Rules or other law or by any general or special order of the Chief Justice, every other case, say, 'cases not covered by Rule 55' shall be heard and disposed of by a Bench of two Judges, provided that, on any day when there is only one Judge sitting on the Bench such Judge may exercise jurisdiction which may be exercised by a Vacation Judge during the vacation.

4. Now, even though Section 18 does not in express terms lay down that appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge shall be heard by two or more Judges it is implied by necessary intendment that appeal against the judgment of a Single Judge is heard by two or more Judges. Rule 61 further leads to the same inference. Special appeals, according to Rule 61, are to be heard by two Judges. That being so, it follows that within the meaning of Rule 63 a special appeal is required by any other law namely, the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, to be heard by more than one Judge and consequently the Vacation Judge cannot hear a special appeal against the judgment of a Single Judge of this Court.

5. Some cases have been brought to my notice by the office namely. Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Kota, Spl. Appeal No. 33 of 1969 (Raj) and Man Industrial Corpn. Ltd. v. G. V. Dalvi, Spl. Appeal No. 34 of 1969 (Raj). These special appeals were heard by a Vacation Judge during the last year's vacation and they were admitted. The fact that they were admitted is not the determinative factor. If they could be admitted, they could equally have been rejected. The point is whether they could have been entertained and heard by a Vacation Judge. Since in those cases there was no discussion of the question, they do not afford much guidance.

6. In these circumstances the office is directed to lay these special appeals before the Division Bench concerned after the vacation. So also the stay applications moved along with the appeals be listed for orders before the Bench concerned.

7. The last question that deserves consideration is whether the Vacation Judge can grant an appropriate interim relief in a case till such time that the appeal is laid before the Bench concerned and heard by it. So far as that question is concerned, I am satisfied that even as the original authority dealing with the writ petition the Single Judge could pass an appropriate order in exercise of the inherent powers of the Court.

8. Learned Deputy Government Advocate, who was present in Court, was heard regarding the giving of interim relief to the appellants. He has nothing to say against the giving of an interim relief to the present appellants. During the pendency of the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge an ad interim stay order was passed in favour of the appellants and that has come to an end with the dismissal of the writ petitions.

9. It is, therefore, hereby ordered that the respondents shall maintain the status quo till the appeals and the stay applications are listed before the Division Bench concerned. This interim stay order will continue till the 7th of July, 1970 arid the appeals be listed for admission along with the stay applications on 7th of July, 1970.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //