Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide his Lordship's order dated 20.3.1999 directed the matter to be listed for consideration and orders before the Full Bench.

4. The learned counsel Mr. Viney Mittal, appearing for petitioner in one writ petition and for newly added respondents No. 4 to 16 in the other, and Mr. S.K. Mittal, counsel for intervenes have at the very outset, raised the following contentions:-

a) The principles of stare decisis is fully applicable to the present case. The order of reference infringes the settled principles of judicial propriety as the learned Single Judge was bound by the law settled by the Full Bench.

This was approved and reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and Anr., (1988)2 Supreme Court Cases 602.

12. From the above well enunciated principles of law, we are of the considered view that the judicial propriety expects that the decision of a larger Bench normally could not be subjected to the appellate or referral jurisdiction before a smaller Bench of the same Court lest it destroys the golden principle of judicial discipline, restraint and respect for judgments of the larger Bench(es). Certainly ingenuinity of the submission of the counsel does not constitute a valid and proper ground for invoking such jurisdiction unless it is unequivocally and manifestly shown that the judgment was contrary to the law of the land or where co-equal Bench has taken directly, a contrary view or thirdly, the judgment is per incuriam. With respect, we follow the views taken in the aforesaid judgments and we are of the considered view that the present case falls in neither of the three classes aforestated.

16. In the case of Bhagwan v. Ram Chand, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1767, it has been held as under:-

"It is hardly necessary to emphasize that considerations of judicial propriety and decorum require that if a learned Single Judge hearing a matter is inclined to take the view that the earlier decisions of the High Court, whether of a Division Bench or of a Single Judge, need to be reconsidered, he should not embark upon that enquiry sitting as a Single Judge, but should refer the matter to a Division Bench, or, in a proper case, place the relevant papers before the Chief Justice to enable him to constitute a larger Bench to examine the question. That is the proper and traditional way to deal with such matters and it is founded on healthy principles of judicial decorum and propriety."