Suresh G. Ramnani vs. Aurelia Ana De Piedade Miranda @ Ariya Alvares (Dead Thr. LRs) & Ors.
Background
In a long-running Goa property dispute, a second appeal was allowed by Justice G.S. Patel of the Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) in January 2019 while he was sitting virtually from the Bombay principal seat, having since been transferred away from the Goa Bench. The losing party filed a review petition, which was admitted by a different judge at the Goa Bench. The original appellant then applied to have the review transferred back to Justice Patel specifically, but this application was rejected by the judge handling the matter at Goa, prompting the present appeal to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court declined to resolve the underlying interpretive question of whether Bombay High Court Rules required the review to be heard by the same judge who passed the original order (Justice Patel) or by whichever judge held the relevant roster at the Goa Bench. Instead, it held that under the proviso to Rule 3(1) of Chapter XXX of the Bombay High Court Rules, when the judge who passed the original order is no longer available or sitting at that bench, the question of which judge should hear the review is an administrative matter falling within the Chief Justice's power as "master of the roster", not something the single judge could decide on the judicial side. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed that the transfer application be placed before the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court for an appropriate administrative decision.
Lesson Learnt
Questions about which judge or bench should hear a matter once the original judge has moved on are administrative roster decisions for the Chief Justice, not something a sitting judge can resolve on the judicial side by simply rejecting or allowing a transfer application.