IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Harish Tandon, J.
Nandu K. Belani and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors. - Respondents
W.P. 327 of 2017
Decided On : 14-09-2017
Judgment: [KEYWORD] - [Multiple Citations of Decisions] - [Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651, Siemens Public Communication Networks (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (2008) 16 SCC 215, State of Haryana v. Northern Indian Glass Industries Limited (2015) 15 SCC 588, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines v. Ramjee (1977) 2 SCC 256, Union of India v. Jesus Sales Corpn. (1996) 4 SCC 69, Patel Engg. Ltd. v. Union of India (2012) 11 SCC 257, S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 594, Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. Woolcombers Workers Union and Another (1974) 3 SCC 318, Kranti Associates Private Limited and Another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others (2010) 9 SCC 496, State of Uttaranchal & Anr. v. Sunil Kumar Vaish & Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 670] - The judgment discusses the importance of adhering to the rule of precedence and the doctrine of stare decisis, the principles of natural justice, and the significance of providing reasons in judicial or administrative dispensation.
Fact of the Case:
The court observed the practice of citing numerous judgments for the same proposition of law, emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies, and discussed the principles of natural justice and the significance of providing reasons in judicial or administrative dispensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner should exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal provided under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and refused to interfere with the order of the Hearing Officer in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The issues revolved around the practice of citing numerous judgments for the same proposition of law, the importance of exhausting statutory remedies, the principles of natural justice, and the significance of providing reasons in judicial or administrative dispensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the rule of precedence and the doctrine of stare decisis, the principles of natural justice, and the significance of providing reasons in judicial or administrative dispensation.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, but the dismissal did not prevent the Petitioner from challenging the impugned orders before the Statutory Forum, and the Appellate Forum was directed to decide the same on merit without being influenced by the fact that the Court refused to entertain the Writ Petition. The prayer for stay of operation of the order was refused.
Harish Tandon, J.
1. At the very outset this Court must recapitulate the observations recorded by the Supreme Court in case of Rashmi Metaliks Limited & Anr. v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority & Ors. reported in (2013) 10 SCC 95 deprecating the multiple citations of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court as well as by the various High Courts reiterating the same principles of law with the following observations:-
"7. This Court, and even more so the High Court as well as the subordinate courts have to face lengthy arguments in each case because of the practice of citing innumerable decisions on a particular point of law. The correct approach is to predicate arguments on the decision which holds the field, which in the present case is Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 rendered by a three-Judge Bench. The rule of precedence, which is an integral part of our jurisprudence, mandates that this exposition of law must be followed and applied even by coordinate or co-equal Benches and certainly by all smaller Benches and subordinate courts. We hasten to clarify that if a coordinate Bench considers the ratio decidendi of the previous Bench to be of doubtful efficacy, it must comply with the discipline of requesting the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench. Furthermore, there are some instances of decisions even of a Single Judge, which having withstood the onslaughts of time have metamorphosed into high authority demanding reverence and adherence because of its vintage and following in contradistinction of the strength of the Bench. This is a significant characteristic of the doctrine of stare decisis. Tata Cellular [(1994) 6 SCC 651] has been so ubiquitously followed, over decades, in almost every case concerning government tenders and contracts that it has attained heights which dissuade digression by even a larger Bench. The law of precedence and of stare decisis is predicated on the wisdom and salubrity of providing a firmly founded law, without which uncertainty and ambiguity would cause consternation in society. It garners legal predictability, which simply stated, is an essential. Our research has revealed the existence of only one other three-Judge Bench decision which has dealt with this aspect of the law, namely, Siemens Public Communication Networks (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2008) 16 SCC 215 which is in actuality an anthology of all previous decisions including Tata Cellular, (1994) 6 SCC 651. The sheer plethora of precedents makes it essential that this Court should abjure from discussing each and every decision which has dealt with a similar question of law. Failure to follow this discipline and regimen inexorably leads to prolixity in judgments which invariably is a consequence of lengthy arguments."
2. Plethora of judgments are cited for same proposition of law inviting this Court to deal with each of them to make the judgment lengthy and voluminous.
3. At the time of moving the motion, this Court observed that the Petitioner should exhaust the statutory remedy provided under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 as all the points taken in the instant Writ Petition are amenable to be taken before the said forum, which is also otherwise competent to decide the same on merit.
4. Such observation embolden the learned Advocates appearing for the Petitioner to cite various judgments of the Apex Court wherein it is uniformly held that mere existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in entertaining the Writ Petition by the High Court. There cannot be any quarrel to the above settled proposition of law as the power enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is one of the fundamental facets under the Constitution founding the basic structure thereof. The catena of decisions rendered in this regard, laid down the principles within its contour that the party can approach the High Court inviting the invocation on powers enshrined under the s
Board of Mining Examination & Chief Inspector of Mines v. Ramjee
Patel Engg. Ltd. v. Union of India
Rashmi Metaliks Limited & Anr. v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority & Ors.
State of Uttaranchal & Anr. v. Sunil Kumar Vaish & Ors.
State of Haryana v. Northern Indian Glass Industries Limited
Siemens Public Communication Networks (P) Ltd. v. Union of India
S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India
Tata Cellular v. Union of India
Union of India v. Jesus Sales Corpn.
Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. Woolcombers Workers Union & Anr.
Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.