Binding nature of judgments of Full Benches.

D.Raju, J. (29. 1991)

The above writ petition though originally filed as one for a writ of mandamus was allowed to be converted as one for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of dismissal dated 15. 1991 made by the third respondent, the Special Officer of the Nazreth Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Tirunelveli District. It is not necessary for me to dwell into the details of the case or the merits of the respective claims of the parties. Suffice it to point out that the respondents have filed a counter affidavit raising a preliminary objection that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court, since reported in R.Tamilarasan etc. v. Director of Handlooms and Textiles and others, (1989)1 L.L.J. 588, the writ petition is not maintainable. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a subsequent decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated 7. 1991 in W.P.No.12811 of 1984 A.Natarajan and others v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies and others since reported in (1991)2 M.L.J. 63: (1991)2 L.L.J. 296, and contended that the Full Bench decision referred to supra does not stand in the way of the writ petitioner maintaining this writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard the learned counsel and gone through both the judicial pronouncements referred to above.

In my view, judicial propriety and decorum counsel me to place the above matter before My Lord, the Honourable the Chief Justice for a solution and if found necessary by my Lord to form a larger Bench for an appropriate consideration of the matter, both on the competency of Division Bench claiming the authority to declare decision of Full Bench to be not binding on the principle of per incuriam or obiter dicta as well as on the question of maintainability of a writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India against a Co-operative Society, administered by the Board of Management or a special officer appointed in the place or in substitution of the said Board of Management of the Society.

3. With great respect and deepest deference to the learned Judges of the Division Bench who decided the case reported in A.Natarajan and others v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies and others since reported in, (1991)2M.L.J. 63: (1991)2 L.L.J. 296, I am unable to subscribe to the course of action adopted by the Division Bench. The reasons which propel me to adopt this course are as hereunder. There can be no controversy over the position that we are still following the law of precedents and the same is recognised and approved to be the law of this land, and consequently we have to abide by certain well settled principles. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, in the decision reported in Jai Sri v. Raj Dewan, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 83: (1962)1 M.L.J. (S.C.) 258: (1962)1 An.W.R. (S.C.) 258: (1962)1 S.C.J. 578: (1962)2 S.C.R. 558, has laid down the position to be thus:

(10) Considering this question, a Full Bench of the Madras High Court observed in Seshamma v. Venkata Narasimharao, (1940)1 M.L.J. 400: I.L.R 1940 Mad. 454:51 L.W. 408: A.I.R. 1940 Mad. 356 at 362 (F.B.):

"The Division Bench is the final Court of appeal in an Indian Court, unless the case is referred to a Full Bench, and one Division Bench should regard itself bound by the decision of another Division Bench on a question of law. In England, where there is the Court of Appeal, Division Courts follow the decisions of other Divisional Courts on the grounds of judicial comity: See the Vera Cruz (No.2), (1884)9 P.D. 96, Harrison v. Ridgway, (1925)133 L.T. 238, Ratkinsky v. Jacobs, (1929)1 KB. 24 and Philips v. Copping (1935)1 KB. 15. If a Division Bench does not accept as correct the decision on a question of law of another Division Bench the only right and proper course to adopt is to refer the matter to a Full Bench, for which the rules of this Court provide. If this course is not adopted, the courts subordinate to the High Court are left without gu