1. Prosecution under Section 7, Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — Writ petition to quash proceedings — Dispute over licensing requirements for oil millers. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 848
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.K.Mukherjee : S.S.M.Quadri
Bajrang Lal Agrawal
Versus
State Of Bihar
Case No. : 866 of 1998
Date of Decision : 8/24/98
When a Single Judge of a High Court is bound by a previous decision of the same court but disagrees with it, judicial discipline requires that the matter be referred to a Division Bench to resolve the conflict.
Headnote:(A) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section 7 - Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 - Judicial discipline and decorum - Binding nature of precedent - Where a Single Judge is aware that they are bound by a previous decision of the same Court but disagrees with the view expressed therein, it is desirable to refer the matter to a Division Bench to resolve the conflict. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
Appellants, accused in a case under the Essential Commodities Act, filed a writ petition to quash proceedings on the ground that a license was not required for an oil miller under the relevant Trade Articles Order. They relied upon a previous judgment of the High Court. The Single Judge disagreed with the view expressed in the cited judgment but observed that, as per judicial discipline and decorum, they were bound by that decision.
Findings of Court:
The court found that since the Single Judge was fully aware of being bound by the previous decision yet disagreed with it, the matter should have been referred to a Division Bench to set at rest the points of contention.
Issues: Whether a Single Judge, while acknowledging a binding precedent of the same court but disagreeing with its perspective, can decide the matter without referring it to a larger bench.
Ratio Decidendi: To maintain judicial discipline, when a judge is bound by a prior decision but believes the disputed points were not placed in the proper perspective, the matter must be referred to a Bench of not less than two Judges to resolve the issue.
Result: Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to the High Court with a request to constitute a Bench of not less than two Judges.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a licence is required for an oil miller under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984. (Para 2 )
3. A Single Judge who acknowledges being bound by a precedent but disagrees with its perspective should refer the matter to a Division Bench. (Para 3 )
4. Matters where a Single Judge is bound by a precedent but disagrees with its reasoning should be referred to a larger Bench for resolution. (Para 3 )
5. Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to the High Court for hearing by a Bench of not less than two Judges. (Para 3 , 4 )
6. What is the proper procedure when a Single Judge disagrees with a binding precedent?
When a Single Judge is aware that they are bound by a decision but believes the disputed points were not placed in the proper perspective, the matter should be referred to a Division Bench to resolve the conflict. (Para 3 )
(1) LEAVE granted. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(2) THE appellants who are accused in a case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 filed a writ petition before a learned Judge of the Patna High Court for quashing its proceeding on the ground that a licence was not required by an oil miller under the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 for breach of which they were being prosecuted. In support of their contention, they relied upon a judgment of another learned Judge of the Patna High Court in Parsuram Prasad v. State of Bihar. The learned Single Judge, however, disagreed with the view expressed in Parsuram and observed as under:
"Now coming to the decision of this Court as quoted above regarding dal mill owner, I am quite aware that as per judicial discipline and decorum, I am bound by that decision. But it appears that the disputed points have not been placed in their proper perspective before the learned Single Judge."
(3) SINCE the learned Single Judge was fully aware that he was bound by that decision, it was desirable, in the fitness of things to refer the matter to a Division Bench to set at rest the points on which the learned Judge had joined issue. On this score alone, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the High Court with a request to the learned Chief Justice to constitute a Bench of not less than two Judges to hear the writ petition filed by the appellants.
(4) THE appeal is thus disposed of.
