( 1 ) A public auction was held by the respondent DDA for shops in CSE, basant Enclave Market, under self-financing group housing scheme on 25. 07. 1983. The appellant was the highest bidder for a restaurant-cum-shop on the top floor having bid for an amount of Rs. 6,67,000/ -. The appellant deposited 25% of the bid amount being the earnest money on the fall of the hammer amounting to Rs. 1,66,750/ -.

( 2 ) THE aforesaid bid was subject to acceptance by the Vice Chairman, DDA being the competent authority and on such bid being accepted and the acceptance being communicated the balance amount had to be deposited within 30 days of such communication. In case of non-acceptance of the bid, earnest money to be refunded to the bidder without any interest. There is no dispute over these terms.

( 3 ) THE appellant claims to have received no communication and it is only some time in January 1984 found out that the bid had not been accepted. There is some dispute on this aspect since according to the respondents this fact was duly communicated and even the cheque had been refunded back but the appellant returned the cheque.

( 4 ) THE appellant aggrieved by the non-confirmation of the bid filed WP (C) 164/1984. The said writ petition was admitted and interim orders were granted in favour of the appellant. The writ petition was decided by the impugned order dated 20. 08. 2004 whereby the writ petition has been dismissed.

( 5 ) A reading of the impugned order shows that the appellant relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP (C) 822/1983 Subhash arora Vs. DDA decided on 30. 09. 1983. However, in terms of the impugned order the learned Single Judge has recorded that he is not in agreement with the views taken by another learned Single Judge of this Court in Subhash Arora s case (supra) and thus the judgment delivered earlier on 25. 02. 1999 was being maintained. It may be noticed that the writ petition was earlier dismissed vide order dated 25. 02. 1999 on merits but none had chosen to appear for the petitioner therein (appellant herein ). On an application being filed seeking recall of the order, the application had been allowed and that order had been recalled. This was in terms of the order dated 06. 08. 2004. The reasons stated for recall of the order was judgment in Subhash Arora s case (supra ).

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant thus contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained for the reason that once the learned Judge had recalled the earlier order dated 25. 02. 1999 on the basis of the judgment in Subhash Arora s case (supra), there could have no occasion to differ with the said view and dismiss the writ petition on that ground relying on the earlier order dated 25. 02. 1999. It was further submitted that even if there was a difference of view, it ought to have been referred to a larger Bench.

( 7 ) THERE is some merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. In case a co-ordinate Bench of the Court finds itself unable to agree with the findings of another Co-ordinate Bench of that Court, the matter is liable to be referred to a larger Bench to avoid inconsistency in judicial pronouncements. Further once the order dated 25. 02. 1999 was recalled on the basis of the judgment in Subhash arora s case (supra), the matter was required to be considered on its own merits and not to rely on the order dated 25. 02. 1999. This does not mean that the learned Judge was bound to follow the view taken in Subhash Arora s case (supra ). But in case of difference of view, the matter was required to be referred to a larger Bench.

( 8 ) BE that as it may, there were two options before us. The first option was to remand the matter back to the learned Single Judge. The second option was to consider the case on its own merits specially in view of the fact that two learned single Judges of this Court were holding a different view in respect of the same subject matter. We c