A single Judge is bound to follow the law laid down by a Division Bench.

S.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. What is the precise legal import of the concept of a precedent of the larger Bench being binding on smaller Benches has become the threshold focal question in these three references by the learned single Judge recording a frontal dissent against the ratios of Division Bench JUDGMENT :s of this very Court and seeking their reconsideration.

2. The necessary matrix of facts may be noticed with brevity from CWJC 3071 of 1981 (Santosh Kumar Chaterjee and others vs. The State of Bihar and others). The petitioner therein sought to challenge the appellate ORDER :of the Collector, Madhepura (annexure 6) whereby he had allowed the appeal and set aside the ORDER :passed by the Laud Reforms Deputy Collector in a bataidari case under section 48 of the Bihar Tenancy Act. This case originally came up before the learned single Judge. Before him firm reliance was placed on the Division Bench JUDGMENT : in Jai Ram Das Bhatia and another vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1977 Patna 315 by the learned Counsel for one of the parties. It would appear that there was no serious dispute that the said JUDGMENT : covered the issue and was not distinguishable However, the learned Judge declined to follow the same and delineated a number of reasons for which it required to be reconsidered. He also opined that if the affirmative view given by the Division Bench is accepted then it may involve an infraction of the constitutional rights of the landlord. Declining to abide by that precedent, the matter was referred to a Division Bench for disposal. Similar references have been made in the other two cases.

3. Before us the preliminary objection has been forcefully taken at the very threshold by the learned Counsel that this reference to the Division Bench is not competent. It was vehemently submitted that the learned single Judge was bound to follow the decision of the larger Bench and to decide the case in accordance therewith. The binding nature of the precedent, which is the linchpin of our justice system, was submitted to have been allegedly infracted by a smaller Bench refusing to follow the law laid down by the larger Bench of this very court.

4. Undoubtedly, an issue of great significance pertaining to the very doctrine of precedent arises herein. This deserves some in depth examination from its three facets of principle, precedent and the special provisions contained in proviso (a) to sub-rule (xv) of rule 1 of Chapter II of the Patna High Court Rules, at page 6.

5. On principle it goes without saying that the binding nature of precedents generally and of larger Benches in particular is the king-pin of our justice system. It is the bond that holds together what otherwise might well becomes a thicket of individualistic opinions resulting in a virtual judicial anarchy. The system of Anglo Saxon jurisprudence, which we inherited, is now rooted in the hierarchy of precedent. This is a self imposed discipline which is so settled in practice as to have hardened into the rule of law and is rightly the envy of other schools of law. Because of the legal position here being axiomatic and well settled, it is unnecessary to overly elaborate the issue on principle.

6. Before us the admitted and common position taken by learned Counsel for the parties is that undoubtedly the ratio of Jai Ram Das Bhatia and another vs. The State of Bihar and others (supra) was attracted to the facts and was not at all distinguishable. Now, once it is so, then a fortiori the said JUDGMENT : having been rendered by the Division Bench was binding on the learned Single Judge. What is the precise import of this binding nature seems now to need no exhaustive dissertation in the context of our jurisprudence. The matter deserves some delving into history because more than two centuries ago Blackstone in his celebrated commentaries elaborated what even then appeared to be the settled rule of the binding nature of precedent in the following terms:–

"It is an establi