05.02.2025 sayandeep Sl. No. 86 Ct. No. 08 MAT 1713 of 2024 With CAN 3 of 2024 Dr. Syed Imtiaz Ahmed Vs. The State of West Bengal & ors. Mr. Syed Arif Ahmed ….. for the appellant Mr. Moniruzzaman …… for the State Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya ….for the WBBSE The writ petitioner has filed the instant appeal urging a ground which in our opinion does not germane to have been taken after pursuing the tenet of the impugned order passed by the Single Bench. The points which are sought to be raised before us relates to the merit of the writ petition and the other related issues which are yet to be decided by the Single Bench as the writ petition is still pending. The impugned order relates to an audit to be conducted with regard to the financial aspects of the school. It appears that the appellant being a suspended headmaster of the school was not cooperating and/or assisting in this regard as the keys of two almirahs are allegedly kept by him and he declined to provide such keys. Since the audit is an important facet in relation to financial transactions, the same cannot be put at halt for all time to come. It appears from the order of the single Bench that an administrator has been appointed over and above the managing committee of the school and the direction was passed upon him to break upon the padlock in presence of the teacher-in-charge as 2 well as the inspector-in-charge of the concerned police station. The suspended headmaster has challenged the said order taking a circuitous route of lack of determination. It is sought to be contended before us that the day on which the impugned order was passed, the single Bench did not have the determination assigned to him by Hon’ble the Chief Justice. However, our attention is drawn to an order dated 18.10.2023 passed by the same Hon’ble Judge where the entire writ petition was treated to be heard in part; obviously, in pursuit of the final relief. The Court often passed the interim orders and once the main matter is heard in part, the interim orders or inter locutory orders, if passed by the same Bench, cannot be construed to have been passed without jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Chief Justice is the master of the roaster and assigns the category of cases to each of the Judge to deal with. The moment, the Bench has heard the matter substantially and kept the same as part heard even the change of determination does not render any order passed therein without jurisdiction. However, there is an exception to the above where the Hon’ble Chief Justice has taken off the file from the Judge and cancelled the part- heard and assigning the same to the particular Bench either having determination or by way of assignment. In absence of any express order of the Hon’ble Chief Justice that in the event, the determination is changed, all matters heard in part or conclusively heard would stand released to be placed before the Bench having determination it remains with the same who heard the matter in part. It is not a case before us nor we have been placed with any order issued by the 3 Hon’ble Chief Justice in the administrative side in this regard. A litigant should not be permitted to raise the question on integrity of the Judge and impartiality shown in the matter in pursuit of dispensing the justice. Recently, a trend has developed in writing a letter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice or to the other authority at the behest of the litigant the moment the learned Judge passed an order adverse to his interest. Such practice should be curbed with the iron hand and the recalcitrant litigant should not be encouraged as it tantamount to raising a finger on the majesty and the sanctity of the Court and its orders. The concept of keeping the matter heard in part has originated since the advent of the establishment in the judicial system in the country and it is not uncommon that the matter which has been substantially heard may be concluded by the same Judge, at short interval. Keeping the matter part heard and deciding it finally not only avoid any further litigation expenses to be incurred by the litigant but also augment the continuity of the matter and deciding the same on merit by the same Judge. We thus do not find that simply the appellant has approached the Hon’ble the Chief Justice raising an issue would denude the single Judge jurisdiction to decide the matter which was heard in part. The appeal and applications are dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited with the Calcutta High Court Bar Association Benevolent Fund within four weeks from date. 4 Urgent Photostat certified copy, if applied for be given to the applicant within three days from the date of the said application. (Harish Tandon, J.) (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)