Usha Kumar Vs. State Of Bihar And Others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 10245 of 1996 with Nos. 10246-52, 12389-91, 16816-17, 8669-73 of 1996 and 5009 of 1997.
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20237 of 1996)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20237 of 1996)
Petitioner: Usha Kumar
Respondent: State Of Bihar And Others
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 10245 of 1996 with Nos. 10246-52, 12389-91, 16816-17, 8669-73 of 1996 and 5009 of 1997.
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20237 of 1996)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20237 of 1996)
Judges: SUJATA V. MANOHAR & M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 23, 1997
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Constitution of India, 1950
Article 226, 136 – Judicial discipline – Division Bench of High Court, taking dif-ferent view than the view taken by two earlier Division Benches – Proper Course. Held that matter should be referred to larger Bench – Matter accordingly remanded for consideration by Full Bench of High Court .
Constitution of India, 1950
Article 226, 136 – Judicial discipline – Division Bench of High Court, taking dif-ferent view than the view taken by two earlier Division Benches – Proper Course. Held that matter should be referred to larger Bench – Matter accordingly remanded for consideration by Full Bench of High Court .
Held:
Judicial discipline requires that if two Division Benches of the same High Court take different views, the matter should be referred to a larger Bench . One Division Bench cannot ignore or refuse to allow the decision of an earlier Division Bench of the same Court and proceed to give its decision contrary to the decision given by the earlier Division Bench . If it is inclined to take a different view, a request should be made to the Chief Justice to refer the same to a Full Bench .(Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
I .A . No. 2
1 . IA No. 2 of 1996 in CA No. 10245 of 1996 filed by Smt Kiran Sinha is allowed and she is added as a party appellant in CA No . 10245 of 1996 . The learned counsel for the parties have no objec-tion to this order being passed .
2 . Leave granted in SLP ( C ) No. 20237 of 1996 .
3 . In the impugned judgment of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court ( Hon’ble Aftab Alam and A.N. Trivedi, JJ. ) dated 1.5.1995, the Division Bench has taken a view which is different from the view taken by the two earlier Division Benches of the same High Court . The judgment itself sets out that normally the matter should have been referred to a larger Bench ; but this may further delay the matter and hence the Division Bench was pro-ceeding with its judgment . This course which is taken by the Division Bench has created obvious difficulties. Judicial disci-pline requires that if two Division Benches of the same High Court take different views, the matter should be referred to a larger Bench . One Division Bench cannot ignore or refuse to allow the decision of an earlier Division Bench of the same Court and proceed to give its decision contrary to the decision given by the earlier Division Bench . If it is inclined to take a different view, a request should be made to the Chief Justice to refer the same to a Full Bench . Even the purpose of saving time has not been served in the present case . The decision has merely generat-ed these appeals which are filed in view of the conflicting views taken by two Division Benches . The State has also come in appeal before us . All the parties are agreed that the appropriate course would be to refer the matter to the Full Bench of the Patna High Court . All these appeals are, therefore, remanded to the High Court of Patna . The Chief Justice of that High Court may consti-tute a Full Bench for deciding all issues which were raised before the division Bench in the impugned judgment . Although the departure from the earlier decisions of the Division Bench may not be on all issues raised before the Court, since the appeals are being remanded to the High Court, it is desirable that the Full Bench, in considering all these matters, deals with all the issues which were raised and considered by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment .
4 . If any of the parties concerned desires to apply for any interim orders it may do so before the High Court .
5 . The appeals are disposed of accordingly .
I .A . No. 2
1 . IA No. 2 of 1996 in CA No. 10245 of 1996 filed by Smt Kiran Sinha is allowed and she is added as a party appellant in CA No . 10245 of 1996 . The learned counsel for the parties have no objec-tion to this order being passed .
2 . Leave granted in SLP ( C ) No. 20237 of 1996 .
3 . In the impugned judgment of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court ( Hon’ble Aftab Alam and A.N. Trivedi, JJ. ) dated 1.5.1995, the Division Bench has taken a view which is different from the view taken by the two earlier Division Benches of the same High Court . The judgment itself sets out that normally the matter should have been referred to a larger Bench ; but this may further delay the matter and hence the Division Bench was pro-ceeding with its judgment . This course which is taken by the Division Bench has created obvious difficulties. Judicial disci-pline requires that if two Division Benches of the same High Court take different views, the matter should be referred to a larger Bench . One Division Bench cannot ignore or refuse to allow the decision of an earlier Division Bench of the same Court and proceed to give its decision contrary to the decision given by the earlier Division Bench . If it is inclined to take a different view, a request should be made to the Chief Justice to refer the same to a Full Bench . Even the purpose of saving time has not been served in the present case . The decision has merely generat-ed these appeals which are filed in view of the conflicting views taken by two Division Benches . The State has also come in appeal before us . All the parties are agreed that the appropriate course would be to refer the matter to the Full Bench of the Patna High Court . All these appeals are, therefore, remanded to the High Court of Patna . The Chief Justice of that High Court may consti-tute a Full Bench for deciding all issues which were raised before the division Bench in the impugned judgment . Although the departure from the earlier decisions of the Division Bench may not be on all issues raised before the Court, since the appeals are being remanded to the High Court, it is desirable that the Full Bench, in considering all these matters, deals with all the issues which were raised and considered by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment .
4 . If any of the parties concerned desires to apply for any interim orders it may do so before the High Court .
5 . The appeals are disposed of accordingly .
