Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

22. In the above backdrop of the factual position relating to mining of minor minerals, orders came to be passed by my learned Brother, C.V.Karthikeyan, J., and the learned Judge had held that since the impugned notices were the off-shoot of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause case (supra), the necessity for compliance with principles of natural justice by issuing notice would not be required, as the directions were to be complied with in letter and spirit and no opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the individual lessees, who had contravened the provision of Rule 42 (iii), as the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on all the courts and that the decrees and orders passed by the Supreme Court is enforceable throughout the territory of India in view of the powers envisaged under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution. Therefore, the learned Judge held that issuance of notice, if any, would be nothing but an empty formality and no purpose would be served in issuing the said notice in view of the binding nature of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned Judge https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.32563/2019, etc. Batch further observed that the petitioners therein, having not complied with Rule 42

“34. The principles that emerge from the decisions, cited supra, are that the decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all the Courts, Article 141 of the Constitution embodies the rule of precedent. A Special Bench/ Full Bench judgment of that High Court is binding on the question of law decided by it and despite the same if any Division Bench holds to the contrary then a Division Bench has the authority to differ with the Division Bench which has taken a view contrary to the Special Bench judgment. A single judge of a High Court is bound by the judgment of another single Judge and a fortiori judgments of Benches consisting of more judges than one. So also, a Division Bench of two judges of High Court is bound by judgments of another Division Bench of two Judges and Full Bench. A single Judge or Benches of High Courts cannot differ from the earlier judgments of co- ordinate jurisdiction merely because they hold a different view. When a Division Bench of two Judges differs from the judgment of another Division Bench of two Judges, it has to refer the case to a Full Bench. A single Judge cannot differ from a decision of a larger Bench except when that decision or a judgment relied upon in that decision is specifically overruled by a Full Bench or the Supreme Court. However, if https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.32563/2019, etc. Batch the decision of the larger Bench is inconsistent with the law laid down by a Full Bench or the Supreme Court, the proper course to the single Judge would be to refer the mailer to the Division Bench.“

33. The above doubt expressed by G.R.Swaminathan, J., stems from the observations and findings rendered by C.V.Karthikeyan, J., wherein the learned Judge had rendered the findings on the following reasoning :-

“192.The said arguments are rejected. Article 141 of the Constitution of India is as follows:-
“141. Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts:-

212.The learned counsel for the petitioners then put forth a further argument in one voice that the impugned notice suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. I hold that the principles of natural justice cannot be extended for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. No.32563/2019, etc. Batch complying with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India have been extracted above. It is clear that any order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on every person. The date, when the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that Environment Clearance is a pre-requisite for grant of extension of lease even for mining of lands of less than 5 hectares is the date when the petitioners were bound to get Environment Clearance. They do not require any further notice. The date, on which, Common Cause (referred supra), was pronounced and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that if mining activities are continued without obtaining Environment Clearance, then 100% compensation is leviable, then from that date onwards, the liability of the petitioners had arisen and they need not be put on any further notice. The law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on all Courts of the country. Further, issuing a show cause notice would only be an empty formality. The petitioners if at all they want to reply to any show cause notice, can only question the rationals of the Supreme Court Judgment. They cannot do so. They are bound by the judgment.