( 1 ) ). These are referred matters. In all these are 11 matters as listed above. The occassion to refer these matters to a Division Bench arose when learned Single Judge, Justice K. G. Shah was hearing said appeals individually and it was found that in each of them common question involved was pertaining to the consent required to be obtained by the person who has filed the complaint on behalf of the local authority, be it municipality or local health authority and the controversy was, because the consent obtained by him was a written consent as per Section 20 (1) of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the authority granting the consent should also record his reasons for giving the consent. The learned Single Judge addressed himself to the controversy and in the course of hearing before him, it was pointed out that there is a judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court on this point which has already answered the controversy in favour of the defence in the sense that there must be reasons recorded by the consenting authority while granting consent under Section 20 (1) of the said Act as stated hereinabove. This case is that of K. S. Prajapati v. State of Gujarat and Another and has also been reported in 32 (1) GLR 82 = 1990 (2) GLH 576. It was urged before the learned Single Judge that there are decisions of other High Courts of Single judge as well as Division Bench holding contrary view. It was also pointed out further that the decision relied on by the learned Single Judge in the said Prajapalis case namely that of a learned single Judge of Bombay High Court as well as a judgment of the Supreme Court as reported in air 1986 S. C. 2160 A. K. Roy and Anr. v. State of punjab, would not lead to this conclusion. In short, the learned Single Judge fell that there appears to be a scope for further discussion on the point and there may be possibility of holding a contrary view to the one held by the learned single Judge Shri Bhairavia and therefore, the matter came to be referred to a Division Bench and this is how we heard all these 11 matters and are disposing them of by this common order. The two questions which are raised for reference have been set out in claboratre in the order of the learned Single Judge passed on 4/09/1990 in all the 11 matters together and at page no. 15, the questions that he has raised are as under: (I) Is it obligatory upon the person authorised to give "written consent" for prosecution contemplated by Section 20 (1) of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954 to give its reasons for giving the consent ?and (II) What would be the effect, if the author by giving the consent has not given the reasons for giving the consent ?

( 2 ) ). On behalf of the prosecuting agency, that is the Corporation or local health authority or municipality, as the case may be, the learned advocate Shri Shelat has advanced the arguments and on behalf of the respective respondents of the separate appeals, learned Advocate shri J. A. Shah has mainly advanced the arguments and whatever they wanted to add to it by way of further submission L. A. Shri Yagnik, L. A. Shri Modi and L. A. Shri Farroqui have been heard.

( 3 ) ). In view of the Supreme Court judgment, naturally, the submission will be made by the parties supporting the view that the written consent required to be given as per Section 20 (1) of the said Act should accompany the reasons also and the Supreme Court pronouncements in a. K. Roys case is a binding authority and Article 141 of the Constitution enjoins upon this Court to follow the same. On the other hand, L. A. Shri shelat has very strongly urged that their Lordships of the Supreme Court were not called upon to decide the contents and the form of the consent nor the issue whether the written consent order should be a reasoned one was raised nor the parties Advocates had addressed the court on that point, much less, therefore they were required to dec