( 1 ) THE question of considerable importance and consequence that has to decided by this Full Bench relates to the binding nature of the precedents of the Bombay High Court on this High Court. The question is whether the Gujarat High Court is bound by the decisions of the Bombay High Court delivered before the 1/05/1960. The petition which gave rise to it come up for consideration before my brother Miabhoy and myself when in the course of the arguments at the bar the learned Advocate General relied on a decision of the High Court of Bombay. Learned counsel on the other side argued that this Court was not bound by any decision of the High Court of Bombay. Our attention was drawn to a decision of the Andhra High Court. Mr. Subbaravudu Vs. State A. I. R. (1955) Andhra 87 decided by a Full Bench of that High Court. It was there held that the binding nature of the precedents of one Court on another depended upon the fact whether such Courts are Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction and the Andhra High Court and the Madras High Court prior 5-7-1954 it was held were Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction We found some difficulty in agreeing with some the reasons which found favour with the learned Judge who decided that case. We were however inclined to take the view though on a different ground that the decisions of the High Court of Bombay should be binding on this Court provided they were given before 1/05/1960. Having regarded to the importance of the question we fell the necessity of having it fully argued and it was directed that the matter should be heard by a Full Bench of this Court.

( 2 ) THE learned Advocate General has argued before us that the effect of section 87 read with some other sections of the Bombay Reorganisation Act 1960 is to make those decisions binding on this Court. He has principally relied on section 87 of that Act which is as under:-"87 The provisions of Part II shall not be deemed to have effected any change in the territories to which any law in force immediately before the appointed day extends or applies and territorial reference in any such law to the State of Bombay shall until otherwise provided by a competent Legislature or other competent authority be construed as meaning the territories within that State immediately before the appointed day. "

( 3 ) CONSIDERABLE stress is laid on words any law in force immediately before the appointed day and it is urged that the first part of the section lay down the rule that the law in force in the State of Bombay immediately before the appointed day continues to be the law to he applied in the territories which now form the State of Gujarat. The next step of the argument is that a decision of the High Court of Bombay on any matter is part of the law within the connotation of the expression law in force and it is said that the expression law in force should be interpreted not in a rigid but in a comprehensive manner and the comprehensive meaning it is said would include decisions of the High Court of Bombay on any point of law whether of construction of an enactment or otherwise. In support of the argument reliance is also placed on the scheme of the Act and a number of sections of the Act. It is not necessary to examine all those sections and we shall be referring only to some of them. Sec. 2 (b) gives the definition of law as under:-"2 (d ). Law includes any enactment ordinance regulation order by-law rule scheme notification or other instrument having immediately before the appointed day the force of law in the whole or in any part of the State of Bombay. "

( 4 ) SECTION 3 of the Act is as under :-"3 (1) As from the appointed day there shall be formed a new State to be known as the State of Gujarat comprising the following territories of the State of Bombay namely:- (a) Banaskantha Mehsana Sabarkantha Ahmedabad Kaira Panchmahals Baroda Broach Surat Dangs Amreli Surendranagar Rajkot Jamnagar Junagadh Bhavnagar and Kutch Districts and (b) the village