The Calcutta High Court has challenged its own judicial order before the Supreme Court, a move which could be telling signs of major disagreements between the judges of the High Court on administrative issues..The order under challenge was passed by Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya on July 19 taking strong objection to Acting Chief Justice (CJ) Rajesh Bindal delisting a case from Justice Bhattacharyya and listing it before a Division Bench (Jadav Saredar v. Basudeb Tarafder).Justice Bhattacharyya in his order, had gone to the extent of terming the administrative decision taken by the acting CJ as "Chutzpah"."'Chutzpah' (Yiddish) is probably not appreciated in the higher echelons of power. However, opacity creates whispers in the corridors and is not healthy for a judicial system," the order of Justice Bhattacharyya had stated. Justice Bhattacharya said that while the Chief Justice is the master of roster, he is not the master of "all I survey" and the power cannot be exercised at his whims and fancies."The power of assignment springing from the "Master of Roster" concept, confines the Chief Justice's administrative power to assign specific Benches for taking up specific types of matters, which cannot be exercised at the whims of the Registrar General or even the Acting Chief Justice," the High Court had said.The power of master of roster has to be exercised in conformity with the rules framed by the Court, the order had stated..The administrative side of the High Court has now challenged the said order by way of a petition filed through Advocate-on-Record Diksha Rai. .[BREAKING] "Most indecent", "Chutzpah": Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya on CJ Rajesh Bindal reassigning case to a Division Bench.The reassigned case in question before the Calcutta High Court was one in which Justice Bhattacharyya had earlier made strong observations regarding glitches in video conference hearings at the Calcutta High Court. He had gone to the extent of saying that he would refuse to hold court unless connectivity issues are resolved completely..In an order passed on July 16, Justice Bhattacharyya had issued notice on why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against the High Court administration, including the Registrar General and the Central Project Coordinator due to continuous interference in virtual hearings.He had said that due to major disruptions in virtual services, he is being forced to play "dumb charades" during virtual hearings with the advocates.The hearings, he lamented, have become a joke by now, and do not tantamount to adjudication of matters..It was later discovered that the said matter had been assigned to a Division Bench on the instruction of the Acting Chief Justice.Hence, Justice Bhattacharyya through a judicial order listed the case before himself on July for passing an order on the limited issue of the manner in which the case was taken away from him.The judge, in his July 19 order, expressed amazement at the manner in which case was assigned to a Division Bench."I was amazed when my officer, as per my instruction, next intimated me that the RG had been directed to call for the records, to be allocated before a Division Bench, despite my judicial order dated July 16, 2021, on the instruction of the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice of this court," Justice Bhattacharyya recorded.This was despite the fact that Division Benches cannot have determination to take up civil revisional applications, which concept is learnt by the junior-most advocates at the time of their entry at the Bar, the judge said."Since this Bench had determination on the relevant date, that is, July 16, 2021 as well as today, I felt it most indecent that, without showing the minimum courtesy of contacting me directly, the matter was sought to be assigned before some other Bench," Justice Bhattacharyya further stated..He had, however, said that he has no intention of violating judicial decorum and propriety and had no special interest to hear the case in question.Therefore, he had said that the matter ought to be heard by the Division Bench in deference to the mandate of the Master of Roster "subject to the said Bench having determination to hear this matter in accordance with law."