A.V. Savant, C.J. (For himself and K.S. Radhakrishnan, G. Sasidharan, R. Rajendra Babu and M. Ramachandran, JJ. - Concurring).

Heard all the learned counsel; Shri. T.G. Rajendran for the petitioner, Shri. M.K. Damodaran, Advocate General for the respondents, Shri P. Santhalingam, amicus curiae, Shri. Siby Mathew, Shri. W. Giri, Shri. Razaak, Shri K.V. Sohan and Shri. Jose as interveners.

2. This petition has been placed before this Special Bench pursuant to the order passed by the Chief Justice on a reference made by a Division Bench on 24th July, 2000 referring the matter to a Larger Bench. The need to refer the matter to a Larger Bench arose since all the learned counsel appearing before the Division Bench viz., Rajendran for the petitioner, Shri. Mohammed Yousef, Addl. Advocate General for the respondents and Shri. Santhalingam, Amicus Curiae, pointed out that there was a clear conflict between the view expressed by a Division Bench of two learned judges in Bar Council of Kerala v. Thankappan Pillai (1985 KLT 738) and that expressed by a Larger Bench of five learned judges in the same case - Bar Council of Kerala v. Thankappan Pillai (1985 KLT 769) on the question of interpretation of S.3 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 (for short, "act" ). It was pointed out to the Division Bench that all the counsel were in agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench in 1985 KLT 738 and stated that the view expressed by the Larger Bench in 1985 KLT 769 required reconsideration.

3. Counsel appearing before the Division Bench made a further grievance that there was no consistent and uniform practice in regard to (a ) stating the grounds on which a single judge should refer the matter to a Division Bench under S.3 of the Act; and (b) framing and stating the question of law in the order of reference to a Division Bench.

4. In the order of reference, the Division Bench has quoted four instances of orders made by single judges under S.3 of the Act, which are as under:

(I)

"ORDER

Adjourned under S.3 of the Kerala High Court Act for being heard by a Bench

Office will place this before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and take orders for posting it before a Bench."

1.9.1992.

(II) "ORDER"

In view of the important question involved in these Writ Petitions, the O.Ps and connected C.M.Ps. are adjourned to be heard by a Division Bench. Place the papers before the Honourable the Chief Justice for orders."

16.4.1993.

(III) "REFERENCE ORDER

After going through the petition and having heard the counsel for sometime, it would be just and proper that the petition be heard by a bench."

9.1.1997. "REFERENCE ORDER

The petitioner filed this Original Petition for the following main relief:

a. To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate order quashing S.271-G(9) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 so far as it relates to the conferring of status of High Court Judge to the members of OMBUDSMAN as ultravires of Art.235 and State list in the 7th Schedule of Constitution of India.

The petitioner seeks to quash S.271-G(9) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, conferring status of High Court judge on the members of the OMBUDSMAN. Considering the public importance and the serious questions of law involved in the above matter, I am of the view that it is a matter to be heard by a Division Bench of this court. Hence place the matter before the Honourable Chief Justice for necessary orders."

14.7.2000.

It will be evident from the above that, in the first case, the single judge observed "adjourned under S.3 of the Kerala High Court Act for being heard by a Bench". In the second case, the ground stated is that "important question" was involved in the petitions. There is no reference to any question of law as such. In the third order, it is stated that "it would be just and proper that the petition be heard by a Bench". The fourth order gives the grounds in brief, setting out the question of law involved namely, the validity of a newly inserted provision regarding conf