Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. In view of the aforesaid, we allow the writ petition to the extent that the Circular dated 17.9.2013 is quashed in so far as it relates to the case of the petitioner, and the petitioner shall be permitted to carry on the business in terms of the agreement, ignoring the direction issued in the aforesaid Circular dated 17.9.2013."

23. A similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in the case of M/s. Sara International Ltd. (supra). Judicial comity, discipline and propriety warrant that the decisions on point of the Orissa High Court should be followed by this Court unless of course, there were valid reasons to differ with the view taken by the Orissa High Court. I have gone through the above judgments of the Orissa High Court and completely agree with the reasoning and the conclusion thereof. Further, learned Single Judge while passing the judgment and order dated April 20, 2017 in W.P. No.5385 (w) of 2017, also principally agreed with the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Orissa High Court with regard to the grounds on which the Circular dated September 17, 2013, had been quashed by the Orissa High Court in some writ petitions qua the petitioners therein. It must be borne in mind that the said judgments and orders have been accepted by the authorities and have been acted upon by them. On a careful examination of the orders, I arrive at a conclusion that the decision of the Orissa High Court ought to be followed in this case as well and the petitioner No.1 cannot be deprived of similar benefits available to their similarly situated counterparts in respect of whom permissions have been granted by the railway authority pursuant the direction of the Orissa High Court. The principle of stare decisis should be invoked in public interest, and in order to keep the scale of justice steady and not variable with every new Judge's opinion.

25. In an unreported decision delivered by another learned Single Judge of this court in The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, FCI & Ors. in re W.P 28555 (W) of 2017. It has been held as follows:-

"21. The circular impugned herein was challenged before the Patna High Court. The Division Bench of the Patna High Court upheld the learned Single Judge's order quashing the impugned circular. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition against the Division Bench judgment and order. I understand that the review petition filed by FCI before the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also been dismissed by an order dated 26 March, 2019. Following the judgment of the Patna High Court, the 9 Chhattisgarh High Court has also set aside the same circular which is impugned in this writ application to the extent it contemplated recovery from the handling labourers. I agree with Mr. Sengupta, learned senior counsel that Judicial comity, discipline and propriety warrant that the same order be passed by this Court unless, of course, I have valid reasons to differ from the view taken by the Patna and the Chhattisgarh High Courts. I have gone through the judgments of the Patna and the Chhattisgarh High Courts and with due respect, I completely agree with the reasoning and conclusion thereof. I have no reason to differ from the view taken in the said judgments. I am also of the view that the impugned circular is liable to be quashed. A situation cannot be countenanced where the impugned circular will not operate in respect of the FCI handlours in Bihar and Chhattisgarh but will operate in West Bengal."

26. Coming to the fact of this case, when several similarly situated investors under the WIS were allowed permission to carry the consignment of third parties on the strength of the decision of the Orissa High Court, the doctrine of judicial comity and discipline demand that similar benefit should be given to the petitioner. Moreover, the special leave petition filed by the authorities before the Hon'ble Apex Court from the order dated December 22, 2016 passed in Gimpex Private Ltd. (supra) by the Orissa High Court, was dismissed. The proposition of law propounded by the Orissa High Court in this regard has thus, attained finality. Under such circumstances, the argument of Mr. Bose, that the orders of Orissa High Court were limited only to the petitioners before it and would not apply in case of the petitioners, is not acceptable.