( 1 ) BINDING judicial precedent the concept and ambit of it, as also the parameters of the per incuriam rule, are what arise forconsideration in the context of the not infrequent instances of law laid down by a larger Bench being treated as, or said to be, incorrect by a single Judge, or a single Judge or a Division Bench doubting the correctness of what has been laid down not only by a co-ordinate but also a larger Bench or brushing it aside by applying to it the label of "per incuriam".

( 2 ) ILLUSTRATIVE of the imperative necessity of examining and clarifying the issues raised are two judgements of M. Katju, J. , one relating to cancellation of an arms licence and the other to the grant of it.

( 3 ) M. Katju, J. in Civil Misc. Petition 8374 of 1992 (Rana Pratap Singh v. State of U. P.) decided on 4/03/1992 when faced with the judgement of a five judge Full Bench in Kailash Nath v. State, (1985 AWC 493) and the earlier Full Bench decision in C. P. Sahu v. State of U. P. (1984 AWC 145 : 1986 Cri LJ 817 : AIR 1986 All 142 : 1986 All LJ 328 said, "with great respect to these Full Bench decisions, I am of the opinion that both of them are wrong. "

( 4 ) THE matter bef