Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Y. R. MEENA, TARUN CHATTERJEE, MAHEMMAD HABEEB SHAMS ANSARI
AHAMED HOSSAIN SK - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
W. P. 17346 Of 1998
Decided On : 07/12/2001
REFERENCE OF A CASE TO A LARGER BENCH - PRINCIPLES GOVERNING - LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE REFERRING A MATTER FOR CONSIDERATION BY A LARGER BENCH - CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS - BINDING PRECEDENT OF A LARGER BENCH - DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS - JUDICIAL PROPRIETY AND DECORUM.
Fact of the Case:
A learned single Judge referred a matter for consideration by a larger Bench, despite the existence of a binding precedent of a larger Bench on the same issue.
Finding of the Court:
The reference made by the learned single Judge was not justified as it violated the principles of judicial propriety and decorum, and the doctrine of stare decisis.
Issues: 1. Under what circumstances can a learned single Judge refer a matter for consideration by a larger Bench? 2. What is the significance of the doctrine of stare decisis in the context of judicial decision-making?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A learned single Judge can refer a matter for consideration by a larger Bench only in exceptional circumstances, such as when there is a conflict of decisions between different Benches of the same High Court, or when a decision of a larger Bench is inconsistent with a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court. 2. The doctrine of stare decisis is a fundamental principle of judicial jurisprudence, which requires courts to follow and apply the principles laid down in previous decisions of higher courts. This principle ensures certainty and uniformity in the law, and prevents conflicting decisions on the same issue.
Final Decision: The reference made by the learned single Judge was disposed of, and the matter was directed to be placed before an appropriate Bench for determination on merits.
( 1 ) THE facts in brief as can be gleaned from the order of the learned single Judge, are as under.
( 2 ) PURSUANT to a notice dated November 5, 1996, petitioner applied for appointment as modified ration dealer (M. R. Dealer ). Concerned Inspector (F and S) appears to have held spot enquiry with respect to the candidates including the petitioner and submitted the report before the Sub Divisional Controller. The Area Chief Inspector considered the report and expressed his opinion thereon. The Sub Divisional Controller then furnished the applications, annexure thereto, report of inspection, the opinion of Area Chief Inspector as well as his personal opinion to the Karmadakshya, Khadya-O-Sarabaraha Stayee Samity of Chapra Panchayet Samity. Though the said papers were placed before the said Samity in June, 1998, but no decision was taken thereon and, therefore, the writ application being W. P. No. 17346 (W) of 1998 was filed.
( 3 ) THE learned Judge was of the following opinion;"in the normal course I would have disposed of this writ petition by directing the concerned Khadyo-O-Sarabaraha Stayee Samity and in its absence the Sabhapati thereof to decide upon the matter at an early date, but the petitioner relying on two judgments of this Court, one passed by a learned single Judge in W. P. No. 7034 (W) of 1997 and the other by a Division Bench in MAT No. 757 of 1999 submitted that the Khadyo-O-Sarabaraha Stayee Samity has no role to play in the matter of appointment of M. R. Dealers. "
( 4 ) LEARNED single Judge thereafter proceeded to consider the matter on merits and expressed the view as under;" I have not been able to accept the contentions of the petitioner based on the aforementioned two judgments of this Court and accordingly I request the Hon'ble Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench for reconsideration of the matters indicated above. "
( 5 ) THE Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice was thereupon pleased to direct that "in view of the judgment dated 5. 10. 99 passed by Justice Barin Ghosh, let the matter be now placed before the larger Bench" and that is how the matter has appeared before us.
( 6 ) IT is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned single Judge should have followed the binding precedent of the Division Bench judgment of the same High Court. Reliance has been placed for the said proposition upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Jankijee Deities and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. , AIR 1999 SC 2131.
( 7 ) ON the other hand, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the State that the Chief Justice has inherent power to refer any matter of some importance to Full Bench. Reliance has been placed upon a Full Bench judgment of this High Court in Tara Dutta v. The State and Anr. , AIR 1975 Calcutta 450 (FB) wherein it was held that even in the absence of rule as in Chapter II of the Appellate Side Rules of a provision corresponding to proviso (ii) Rule 1 which relates to civil matters, the Chief Justice has inherent power to refer any matter to a Bench of three Judges' when the matter is some importance. The Chief Justice can exercise his inherent power to constitute a larger Bench in criminal matters in situation or circumstances as envisaged in civil matters by proviso (ii) Rule 1 of Chapter II of the Appellate Side Rules.
( 8 ) CHAPTER II and proviso (ii) Rule 1 of the Appellate Side Rules of this Court which specifically confer such power inherent in the Chief Justice reads as under;" (II) Provided also that, on the requisition of any Division Bench, or whenever he thinks fit, the Chief Justice may appoint a Special Division Bench, to consist of three or more Judges, for the hearing of any particular appeal, or any particular question of law arising in an appeal, or of any other matter. "
( 9 ) IT is Chapter VII which deals with references to a Full Bench and for the sake of convenience, relevant rules are extracted hereunder;"1. WHENEVER one
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
