The judgment emphasized the importance of judicial discipline, hierarchical judicial system, and the binding nature of higher court decisions on lower courts. It clarified the statutory provisions for tax exemption and liability under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, highlighting the requirement of compliance with advance intimation and surrender of registration certificate for exemption.

1. The decision of M.P. Menon, J. in Eastern Sea Food (P) Ltd., v. R.T.A. and others (1985 KLJ. 968) was overruled by us in Velayudhan Nadar v. State of Kerala (1986 KLT. 633), by judgment delivered on 3rd April, 1986, just before the summer vacation. When the same question arose before the same learned judge in this Writ Petition soon after the vacation, the learned judge, instead of following the Division Bench ruling, binding on the single Bench reiterated his own view expressed in the decision overruled, and referred the case to a larger "Bench" by a lengthy reference order dated 10th July, 1986. In an unprecedent move the reference order itself was marked for reporting and the same is reported in Kannappan v. R.T.O. (1986 KLT. 911). The learned judge has observed in the reference order that our Bench decision has left "many a precedent of this court in shambles" obviously because we "were not cautioned by counsel against such an inherent danger". When the learned judge was pressed by the Government Pleader to follow the Division Bench ruling, that was brushed aside by the remark:

"Though the learned Government Pleader would suggest, with the touch of a shipwrecked mariner sighting a sail, that I should follow the view of the Division Bench and dismiss the writ petitions, I must hesitate a little where others seems to be confident".

2. There can be no "hesitation" for a single judge to follow a Division Bench ruling binding on the single Bench for, he is bound in law to follow the Division Bench decision. The fact that the views of the learned judge did not find acceptance at the bands of the Division Bench does not mean that whenever the identical question is raised before the learned judge, the matter has to be again referred to a Division Bench till the views of the single judge are endorsed by a Division or Full Bench. Brought op in the highest traditions of judicial discipline, this court cannot at any time swerve from the path of judicial decorum and propriety. We shall content ourselves by a quotation from the decision of the Supreme Court in Asstt. Collector, C.E., Chandran Nagar v. Dunlop India Ltd. (AIR. 1985 SC 330) thus:

"We desire to add and as was said in Cassel and Co. Ltd. v. Broome. 1972 AC 1027 we hope it will never be necessary for us to say so again that'in the hierarchical system of Courts" which exists in our country, 'it is necessary for each lower tier', including the High Court, 'to accept loyally the decisions of the higher tiers'. "It is inevitable in a hierarchical system of Courts that there are decisions of the Supreme Appellate tribunal which do not attract the unanimous approval of all members of the judiciary But the judicial system only works if someone is allowed to have the last word and that last word, once spoken, is loyally accepted". (See observations of Lord Hailsham and Lord Diplock in Broome v. Cassell.) The better wisdom of the court below must yield to the higher wisdom of the court above. That is the strength of the hierarchical judicial system".

3. Reiterating the same principle, in a very recent ruling of the Supreme Court in Shyamarju v. U. V. Bhat (AIR 1987 SC 2323) came down very heavily on a Division Bench which did not follow the Full Bench decision of the same court.

4. Under S.3 of the Kerala High Court Act. a single judge may adjourn a case for being heard and determined by a Bench of two Judges. But a single judge has no power to refer a case to a Full Bench for, that power is expressly reserved to a Bench of two judges under S.4 of the Act. The reference now made by the learned single judge has to be construed as a reference under S.3 to a Division Bench, even if the learned judge intended by the use of the expression 'larger Bench', that it should be referred to a Full Bench.

5. In view of the Division Bench ruling in 1986 KLT 633 (Velayudhan Nadar's ease) which holds the field and which bind us also, it is unnecessary to re-state the law or give additional