JUDGMENT - SINHA D.D., J.:---Heard Shri Bhangde, learned Counsel for the applicants, Shri Dastane, learned Counsel for the non-applicant No. 1, Shri Panpalia, learned Counsel for the non-applicant No. 3 Shri Mujumdar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for non-applicant No. 4 in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 329/2003 so also Shri Deshpande learned Counsel for non-applicant No. 1 in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 330/2003.

2. The Division Bench of this Court consisting of R.K. Batta and J.P. Devadhar, JJ., vide common order dated 16-4-2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 137/1986, (Anil Dattatraya Ade v. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal and three others)1, and in Writ Petition No. 2387/1985, (Laxmikant Balkrishna Joshi v. Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and five others)2, reported in 2004(1) Bom.C.R. (N.B.)843 referred the matter of the Honble Chief Justice for constituting larger Bench. The Honble Chief Justice vide order dated 11-11-2002 was pleased to constitute a Full Bench of three Judges, which was presided over by the Honble Chief Justice. The Full Bench passed judgment on 13-3-2003 (Anil Dattatraya Ade v. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal and three others)3, since reported in 2003(3) Bom.C.R. (F.B.)(N.B.)465 and decided the questions of law referred to it. The present applicants (original respondents) in the above referred writ petition, filed Misc. Civil Application No. 329 of 2003 as well as Misc. Civil Application No. 330 of 2003, inter alia, seeking a review of the judgment, dated 13-3-2003, of the Full Bench, Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel for non-applicant No. 1, raised a preliminary objection about maintainability of the Misc. Civil Applications for review of the judgment, dated 13-3-2003, of the Full Bench on the following grounds :

3. Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel for non-applicant No. 1, contended that power of review is not an inherent power and needs to be conferred by law or statue. It is submitted that there is no provision or statue, which confers such power of review in respect of a decision rendered by the Full Bench and, therefore, the present Misc. Civil Applications for review are not maintainable.

4. Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel, states that the only exception to the above referred principle is the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is contended that in the instant case, Division Bench, vide Order, dated 16-4-2003, directed that the matter be placed before the Honble the Chief Justice in terms of Rule 7 of Chapter-I of the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960, for appropriate orders for two reasons, namely (1) that the earlier decisions do not consider the issue threadbare with reference to various provisions of law, which have a material bearing on the issue in question, and that (2) there are contradictory views. It is submitted that in view of this, the Division Bench considered it appropriate that the issues be referred to the larger Bench. The exercise undertaken by the Division Bench by referring the above referred issues to the Full Bench was, for settling the legal position arising out of conflicting views expressed by the earlier Division Benches and to decide the question of law having a material bearing on the issue involved in the writ petition.

5. Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel, vehemently contended that pursuant to the order of reference of the Division Bench, the Honble Chief justice has constituted a Full Bench of three Judges for the purpose of deciding the controversy in regard to the point of law on which conflicting decisions of the Division Bench were in the field. It is contended that in such situation, the jurisdiction, which the Full Bench exercises, is an advisory and consultative jurisdiction of a larger/Special Bench, which was sought to be invoked, and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the Full Bench exercises jurisdiction, which is not only independent, distinct and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document