Judgment - When the judgment reveal a common effect, then there appears to be absolutely no point of difference/divergence in the parameters within the framework of which the two members of the Bench issued their directions

1. Civil Misc. No.5016 of 2005 has been filed on behalf of respondents No.2to 4, under rule 31 of Chapt er FCCCVCVC 4 (F) of the High court rules and Orders, read with, clause 26 of the Letters Patent. Rule 31 of chapter 4 (F) of the High Court Rul2212es and Orders is being extracted hereunder:-

"31. Difence of Opinion.- In case of a difference of opinion between the Judges constituting a Bench hearing a petition, the points of difference shall be decided in accordance with the procedure laid down in clause 26 of the letter Patent"

2 Clause 26 of the Letters Patent, which has been referred to in rule 31, extracted above, is also being reproduced hereunder:-

"26. Single Judges ad Division Courts.- And We do hereby declare that any function which is hereby directed to be performed by the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, 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 one hundred and eight 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 be a majority, but, if the Judges 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 those who first heard it. " (2) It is pertinent to mention that three separate orders were passed while deciding CWP No.6196 of 2004 on 14.2.2005. The first order was passed by Honble Mr. Justice Surya Kant on 14.2.2005 (the instant order will be referred to as the "main Order, passed by Honble Mr. Justice surya kant", hereinafter ). The next order was passed on the same day by honble the Chief Justice Mr. Binod Kumar Roy (this order will be referred to as the "order Passed by the Honble Chief Justice", hereinafter ). In the order passed by Honble the Chief Justice, reference was made to various observations and the conclusions recorded in the Main Order by honble mr. Justice Surya Kant. The third order was also passed on 14.2.2005. It was passed by Honble Mr. Justice Surya Kant after he had gone through the order Passed by the Honble Chief Justice. This order bears the title, "post judgment Script" (the third order shall, therefore, be referred to as the "post judgment Script of Honble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, hereinafter ). (3) In CM No.5016 of 2005, filed on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4, it is alleged that the Honble Judges who decided CWP No.6196 of 2004 on 14.2.2004, expressed different views on a number of issues. It is, therefore, that the applicants have sought appropriate directions under rule 31 of Chapter 4 (F) of the High Court Rules and Orders, read with, clause 26 of the Letters Patent through the instant application. The nature of conflict between the Main Order passed by Honble Mr. Justice Surya kant, and the Order passed by the Honble Chief Justice, is sought to be reflected through paragraphs 2 to 4 of the aforesaid application. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of the aforesaid application are being reproduced hereunder:- "2. That the Honble Chief Justice has held that the writ petition has been filed in public interest and that "it cannot be said that he is not a public spirited person or that he lacks bonafide or that he is a busy body. " The Honble Mr. Justice surya Kant has held "yet it is more than difficult to hold him a public spirited person at whose instance a P. I. L. should be entertained. " 3. Again the Honble Chief Justice has held that:- "the decision of his Excellency the Governor of Punjab-cum-Administrator, Chandigarh Administration that the impugned allotment requires taking up of corrective steps