The Supreme Court in Ajay Singh versus Condition of Chhattisgarh, while holding that the outcome of settling can’t be reported without the judgment accessible on record, too talked about the legitimateness of the high court, on its regulatory side, exchanging a case starting with one locale court then onto the next.
The seat headed by Justice Dipak Misra, for this situation, maintained the full court choice to move the cases being referred to from the trial judge worried to the Öle of District and Sessions judge for rehearing and transfer, watching that there is no wrongdoing in it. The court dismisses the disputes that such an energy to exchange the case couldn’t have been practiced by the full court on the managerial side and that high court can just move the case in practice of force under Section 407 and that, as well, on the legal side.
The court alluded to Ranbir Yadav v. Condition of Bihar, wherein it was watched that the high court, on its regulatory side, can exchange the cases the length of it is worked out only for regulatory exigency without impinging upon and preferentially influencing the rights or interests of the gatherings. The court likewise watched that Article 227 gives force of superintendence on the high court over the courts and tribunals inside the region of the state and it has the purview and the power to practice suo motu control.
The seat watched that the high court, on the managerial side, had exchanged the case to the educated Sessions Judge by which it has given locale on the trial court to attempt the sessions case under CrPC. “In this way, it has done as such as it has, as an issue of truth, found that there was no judgment on record. There is no lawlessness,” the seat said, while requesting the trial court, to which the cases have been exchanged, to continue in agreement with law.