The Supreme Court observed on Thursday, November 10, 2022, that an application seeking to assign a review petition to a specific HC judge should be placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court and not dealt with on the judicial side.

"Having considered the submissions, we find that the matter does not raise any factual issue, but it is only a question of interpretation of the Rules, the Court’s propriety and jurisdiction. We do not wish to go into the issue of interpreting the Rules in order to hold as to whether the review should be heard by Judge ‘A’ or any other Judge. However, we are of the view that considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, once an application was preferred by any of the parties that a review may be heard by the Judge who had decided the matter and had passed the order from which the review arose, the matter ought to have been placed before the Chief Justice on the administrative side rather than order being passed on the judicial side"

The proviso to Rule 3(1) of Chapter XXX of the Rules grants the Chief Justice the authority to assign a particular matter to a single judge for the purpose of hearing the review application where the single judge concerned is not available for the time being due to being on leave or otherwise as aforesaid, i.e., where he has ceased to sit at a particular bench. The learned single judge should not have dealt with the application dated July 16, 2009 (Misc. Civil Application No. 526 of 2019), but should have referred the matter to the Chief Justice, who is the master of the roster and has specific powers of assigning review petitions in given circumstances under the Rules.

However, the court added that the matter should have been brought before the Chief Justice on an administrative level rather than a judicial level. The court further held:

"The proviso to Rule 3(1) of Chapter XXX of the Rules confers this power on the Chief Justice to assign a particular matter to a single Judge for hearing of the review application where the single Judge concerned was not available for the time being by reason of being on leave or otherwise as aforesaid i.e. where he had ceased to sit at a particular Bench. The Chief Justice, being the master of roster and being conferred with specific powers of assigning review petitions in given circumstances under the Rules, the learned single Judge ought not to have dealt with the application dated 16.07.2009 (Misc. Civil Application No.526 of 2019), but should have referred the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice."

Case Details:-

Suresh G. Ramnani Vs. Aurelia Ana De Piedade Miranda @ Ariya Alvares (Dead Thr. Lrs) & Ors.

SLP(C) 20623 of 2019

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/30088/30088_2019_12_1501_39604_Judgement_10-Nov-2022.pdf