JUDGMENT

S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.

(1) LEAVE granted in special leave petitions challenging the judgment and order dated 24/10/1996 and 25/10/1996 passed by the division bench of the High court of Gujarat in Miscellaneous (Civil) Application No. 1939 of 1995.

(2) BY consent of the learned advocates of the parties the appeals were taken up for final hearing. In these appeals by special leave the appellant- Company has brought in challenge the judgment and order dated 24/10/1996 and 25/10/1996 passed by the division bench of the High court of Gujarat in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 1939 of 1995 arising from Special Civil Application No. 770 of 1995. Apart from the merits of the controversy raised by the appellant-Company against the aforesaid judgment, it is necessary to note at the outset one important procedural question which arises for consideration in these appeals. It runs as under:

"WHEN in review proceedings arising out of the decision of the division bench of two learned Judges of the High court rendered in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is in the nature of original proceedings, the two learned Judges deciding the review petition differ on questions of fact or law, whether a reference to a third learned Judge is required to be made for disposal of the review petition as per the majority opinion of the three learned Judges or whether on difference of opinion between them on these questions, the petition is required to be dismissed under Order 47 Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC for short), keeping the order sought to be reviewed untouched."

As the aforesaid question goes to the root of the matter we thought it fit to hear the learned counsel for the respective parties on this question at the outset.

(3) BEFORE coming to the grips of the said question it is necessary to note a few introductory facts leading to the present roceedings.

(4) A public interest litigation petition was moved in the High court of Gujarat by the two writ petitioners who were agriculturists having agricultural lands in Kheda District of Gujarat State. The said petition was moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was alleged that the industries which had been set up in the industrial estates at Naroda, Vatva and Odhav on the periphery of Ahmedabad city were discharging their polluted effluents into Kharicut canal which, in turn. leads to Khari River. It was further alleged that there are about 11 villages in Kheda District whose only source of water for the purpose of agriculture is the Khari river. Due to the water pollution caused by the said industries the water of the Khari river was no longer suitable for agriculture. In addition thereto the agricultural lands in these villages had lost their fertility and the water drawn from the wells was having reddish colour even when it was from the depth of about 300 ft. Various other allegations were made in the writ petition which tried to cover in its sweep of attack about 756 industrial units situated in the industrial estates of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, situated at Naroda, Vatva and Odhav and also some of the textile units and proc essing units situated in or near Ahmedabad. In the said writ petition the present appellant was also one of the contesting respondents. After hearing the parties concerned the division bench consisting of B.N. Kirpal, C.J. (as he then was), and H.L. Gokhale, J" by its order dated 5/8/1995/7/8/1995 allowed the writ petition and issued various directions against the polluting industries concerned as detailed in the same judgment. It is not in dispute between the parties that some of the industries covered by the said judgment came to this court by way of special leave petitions which were dismissed by this court. So far as the appellant is concerned it also challenged the very same judgment of the High court by filing Special Leave Petition (C) No. 24916 of 1995. A