C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

W.A.No.1451 of 2015 has been filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai and Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Lands Administration, Chennai, the District Revenue Officer, Tanjavur, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tanjavur, and the Tahsildar, Tanjavur, challenging the order in W.P.No.9037 of 2004 dated 04.09.2014 and in W.P.M.P.No.10545 of 2004, dated 18.12.2014.

2. The Writ Appeal had been filed against the Shanmuga Arts, Science, Technology and Research Academy (SASTRA), Deemed to be a University, Thirumalaisamudram, Thanjavur and VEE SEE BEE Trust Administering Shanmuga Polytechnic, having its main campus at "Shanmuga Campus", Thirumalaisamudram, Thanjavur, who were the writ petitioners in W.P.No.9037 of 2004. On the date of pronouncement of the judgment on 11.08.2017, the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal had impleaded two further appellants, namely, the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Prisons) Department, Chennai and the Additional Director General of Police / Inspector General of Prisons, Chennai.

3. The writ appeal did not have a decisive ending. The two judges differed in their opinions, reasons and conclusions. The lead judgment affirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. In the dissenting judgment, the said order was set aside. In view of the conflicting decisions, taking recourse under clause 36 of Letters Patent of the Madras High Court, the Honourable The Chief Justice had referred the writ appeal for adjudication to this Court. Clause 36 of Letters Patent of the Madras High Court is as follows:

"36. Single Judges and Division Courts:-

And We do hereby declare that any function which is hereby directed to be performed by the said High Court of Judicature at Madras, in the exercise of its original or appellate jurisdiction, may be performed by any Judge, or by any Division Court thereof, appointed or constituted for such purpose, (in pursuance of Section 108 of the Government of India Act, 1915), and if such Division Court is composed of two or more Judges, and the Judges are divided in opinion as to the decision to be given on any point, such point shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the Judges, if there shall be a majority, but if the Judges should be equally divided (they shall state the point upon which they differ and the case shall then be heard upon that point by one or more of the other Judges and the point shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the Judges who have heard the case included who those first heard it.)"

4. A reading of clause 36 reveals that if a Division Bench composed of two Judges stand equally divided in their opinion as to the decision to be given on any point, such point shall be heard and decided by one or more other Judges. It had also been provided in Clause-36 that when the Judges stand equally divided they shall state the point upon which they differ. Clause-36 had came for interpretation in the case of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam vs. State Election Commissioner, represented by D.Chandrasekaran and others, (2007) 2 LW 21. The relevant portion had been given in para 182, which is as follows:

"182. Even though Clause 36 of the Letters Patent requires that if the opinion of the Judges should be equally divided, they shall state the point upon which they differ and the case shall then be heard upon that point by one or more of the other Judges and the point shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the Judges who have heard the case including who those first heard it, no specific point on which difference has arisen has been specified. When the matter was placed before me, at the threshold this aspect was highlighted by me and the learned counsels appearing for all the parties have stated that even though points of difference have not been