Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. This Court has noticed that even though the law is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the year 2009 itself in .VN. Devadoss Vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-lnspector and Ors: (2009) 7 SCC 438 in para Nos. 16 to 18, the cases involving similar facts and circumstances, are being brought before this Court almost on a regular basis. This Court, by citing .VN. Devadoss's case, as a binding precedent, had already decided several similar cases. A learned Single Judge has already decided cases on similar facts by placing reliance on V.N. Devadoss'scase. Even when the State has preferred an Intra-Court Appeal, a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court has also confirmed the Order of the learned Single Judge inasmuch as the reliance was placed on the precedent rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Article 141 of the Constitution stipulates that the law rendered/declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court would bind all the Subordinate Courts and the Executive across the Country. It would be the incumbent duty on the part of the Executive to keep track of the 'march of law' and 'follow the binding precedent' only to ensure that a citizen shall not be compelled to knock at the doors of the Writ Court once again. Unfortunately, the Officers who are of the rank of Sub-Registrar and Registrar, have been constantly violating this principle of stare decisis. This doctrine mandates everyone including the subordinate courts and the executive to follow the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as a binding precedent without having to apply their discretion once again. Once the law is settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it would be the incumbent duty, not only on the Subordinate Courts, but also the Executive across the country to scrupulously follow the said dictum in all cases of similar nature.