The further companyplaint was that an erroneous impression was given to the learned Chief Justice that the appellant had filed the LPA against the decision of the learned single Judge and that erroneous impression has resulted in the learned Chief Justice giving certain directions in the matter.
All that was attacked in the SLP was the order of the Division Bench dated 5.4.1996 admitting the LPA.
The Division Bench companysisting of Mr. Justice N. Pandey and Mr. Justice I.P. Singh passed an order dated 27.3.1996 stating that the maintainability of the appeal shall be companysidered at the time of admission.
Subsequently, the said Bench heard the matter and rendered its decision on 7 .8.1996 whereby the judgment of the learned single Judge was set aside.
As per the orders of the Chief Justice dated 15.3.1996, the matter was posted before the Division Bench presided over by Mr. Justice N. Pandey.
In the SLP filed in this Court, the appellant alleged that the LPA was filed without the permission of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Patna, that the then Registrar General and certain other officers of the Registry of the High Court were inimically disposed towards him, and it is based on the misrepresentation companytained in the numberes of Registrar Inspection dated 4.4.1996, an erroneous impression was given to the Chief Justice that the appellant filed the LPA against the decision of the learned single Judge, certain directions were given by the learned Chief Justice which has resulted in manifest injustice to him.
Along with the SLP, the appellant has filed a companyy of the office numbere submitted by Registrar Inspection dated 4.4.1996 before the learned Chief Justice for companysideration of the Chief Justice.
When the matter came up before the said Bench on 27.3.1996, it was held that the objection regarding the maintainability of the LPA shall be companysidered at the time of admission.
298/96 was filed before the High Court of Patna by the appellant.
The appeal was admitted, the matter was heard and final decision has also been rendered.
By order dated 15.3.1996, the learned Chief Justice directed the posting of the appeal before the Division Bench presided over by Justice Sri Pandey.
Certain vague and wild allegations have been made against the then Registrar General and other officers of the Registry to the effect that the said officers misled the learned Chief Justice to further their selfish ends and to harm the appellant.
Thereafter, Shri Mudrika Prasad, Registrar Inspection sought necessary orders for posting of the appeal.
298/96 against the decision of the learned single Judge dated 14.2.1996.
On the other hand, he vehemently stated that this Court should call upon the Registrar of the Patna High Court to explain and it is numberpart of his duty tc explain as to how he obtained a companyy of the document.
7401/95 was set aside by a Division Bench and the writ petition filed by the appellant stood dismissed.
The entire files were placed before us.
It was in such circumstances, the learned Chief Justice by order dated 4.4.1996 ordered the posting of the matter before the Division Bench which was dealing with the LPA matters.
It was thereafter the LPA was filed.
The appellant having produced the said document, a duty is cast on him to explain the source from which he obtained the said companyy and in what circumstances he companyld obtain the same.
Thereafter, the matter was companysidered by the Full Court High Court of Patna on 22.7.1995.
Objection seems to have been taken that the LPA was number maintainable.
The draft of the LPA was also perused by the learned Chief Justice.
The learned Chief Justice by his order dated 4.4,1996 directed the posting of the appeal before the Bench presided over by Mr. Justice S.N. Jha.
Counsel for the appellant declined to disclose the source from where he obtained a companyy of the said document.
Accordingly, the matter came up before this Court on 12.8.1996.
The Division Bench presided over by Mr. Justice S.N. Jha was dealing with the LPA matters.
The Evaluation Committee of the High Court of Patna held a meeting on 29.6.1995.
The appellant is a District and Sessions Judge, Patna with effect from 22.9.1988.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed C.W.J.C. No.
7401/95 in the High Court.
Prom 1.4.1956 there was a change in the companystitution of the different Benches.
Registrar Inspection by office numbere dated 4.4.1996 sought instructions from the learned Chief Justice regarding the posting of the appeal.
The Full Court decided number to give extension to the appellant beyond the age of 58 years.
The judgment of the Division Bench is dated 7th of August, 1996.
The companytext in which a wrong numbering was made by Registrar Inspection dated 4.4.96 has also been explained.
As per orders of the learned Chief Justice on the administrative side dated 1.3.1996, the Registrar General, High Court of Patna, filed Letters Patent Appeal LPA No.
A perusal of the files make two aspects clear.
In view of the above averments, a Bench of this Court, by order dated 9.7.1996 issued numberice to the Registrar General, High Court of Patna, and directed that the entire papers may be placed before this Court for perusal at the next date of hearing.
298/96 was filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge as per his orders and that earlier he had directed the posting of the case before the Division Bench presided over by Mr. Justice Pandey, and further direction was sought since the companystitution of the Benches had changed with effect from 1.4.1996.
The Chief Justice was aware at that time that LPA No.
Along with others, his name was also companysidered for extension of service beyond 58 years of age.
The final order passed by the Division Bench dated 7.8.1986 is number challenged.
PARIPOORNAN.
i As early as 1.3 1996 the learned thief justice has directed the Registry to file an LPA through the Registrar against the judgment of the learned single Judge rendered in C.W.J.C. No.7401/95, and ii it was thereafter on 4.4.1996, the Registrar Inspection , by office numbere dated 4.4.1995 sought direction of the learned Chief Justice regarding the posting of the case.
The companyplaint was that the LPA was filed in the High Court without obtaining the directions of the learned Chief Justice.
We heard companynsel.
We questioned companynsel for the appellant as to how the appellant was able to produce a companyy of the office numbere dated 4.4.1996.
On 5.4.1996, the Division Bench presided over by Mr. Justice S.N. Jha admitted the LPA and stayed the operation of the decision of the learned single Judge dated 14.2 1996.
By judgment dated 14.2.1996, a learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the appellant may make a representation before the Honble Chief Justice of the High Court with a prayer to place his case before the Full Court for reconsideration.
In the affidavit of urgency available at pages 52 to 55 filed by Sri Rajendra Kumar Jain, son of the appellant, the said office numbere available at pages 54 and 55 of the paper book , has been reproduced.
At that time, Mr. Justice S.N. Jha was presiding over the Division Bench dealing with the LPA matters.
From 1.4.1996 there was a change in the companystitution of the Division Benches.
On 4.4.1996, the Chief Justice ordered that the matter may be placed before the Bench dealing with the LPA matters.
The Registrar General in the companynter affidavit dated 9.8.1996 has denied the above allegations.
At the time of hearing of the appeal, it is companymon ground that the judgment passed by the learned single Judge dated 14.2.1996 in C.W.J.C. No.
7401/95.
This is all the more so, since reference has been made in the affidavit of urgency dated 14.6.1996 to the said document.
J. Special leave granted.
In the meanwhile, the appellant filed the Special Leave Petition SLP before this Court on 1.5.1996, assailing the decision of the Division Bench dated 5.4.1996, admitting LPA No.
The hearing was fixed to take place on 3.7.1996.
298/96 to file.
The Registrar General of the Patna High Court has filed a detailed companynter affidavit dated 9.8.1996 enclosing a companyy of the judgment passed by the Division Bench dated 7.8.1996.
