By the Court.—These are two Special Appeals i.e. 387 of 2010 and 388 of 2010 which were shown in the Computer List for being heard and thus in presence of counsel for both sides, as requested by them, both appeals were taken up for hearing.

2. Sri Neeraj Upadhyay, learned Advocate and Sri K. R. Sirohi, learned Senior Advocate appeared for the appellant in both appeals and Sri Yashwant Singh, learned Advocate appeared for the respondent side in both matters.

3. It is to be mentioned here that Sri Yashwant Singh, learned Advocate is the counsel in both writ petitions i.e. writ petition Nos. 7212 of 2010 and 10196 of 2010 against which present appeals arises.

4. Before we proceed to deal with the merit in these appeals we are to observe that large number of writ petitions cognizable by the learned Single Judge and against various other orders, the matter being entertainable by the Division Bench in the Special Appeal forum and few Special Appeals against the final decision of the learned Signle Judge being pending before the concerned Division Bench were earlier asked to be clubbed with these two Special Appeals on the premises that same questions are involved in all the matters whereas it is not so, for the simple reason that these two appeals are against just an interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge in two writ petitions referred above in which reliefs sought are not as the impression was gathered by the other Bench (Division Bench) referring/clubbing all the matters by the order dated 25.3.2010 in writ petition No. 6331 of 2010.

5. This being the simple situation instead of going into the merits of each and every writ petition and other cases individually, cognizable by the learned Single Judge or otherwise by the Division Bench we by the earlier detailed order dated 20.8.2010 directed other matters to be detached, by noticing the submission and anxiety of all the Advocates present and thus these two Special Appeals are to be heard and decided.

6. Our directions in this respect after noticing the submission of learned Advocates is contained in the order dated 20.8.2010 passed in Special Appeal No. 387 of 2010.

7. We are to add here that a reference is required to be made to the larger Bench only where there is a conflict of opinion in Division Bench judgments and the consideration is required by a larger Bench consisting of more Judges as judicial discipline obliges learned Single Judge or a Division Bench to follow a Bench decision or a decision of the Bench of larger quorum. There has to be conflict and then expression of disagreement by the Bench having the same quorum and then situation of reference may arise.

8. The situation not being so, as is clear from all the orders making reference to a larger Bench (three Hon’ble Judges) that appears to be not needed.

9. Reference in this respect can be given to a recent decision given in the case of Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and another v. State of Maharashtra and another, AIR 2005 SC 752, the observation in this respect which is relevant is to be quoted :

“Since no reference made by any Bench of any strength at any time for hearing by a larger Bench and doubting the correctness of the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb’s case held that order dated 18.3.1994 by two-Judge Bench could not be construed as an order of reference - Since at no point of time the Chief Justice of India directed the matter to be placed for hearing before a Constitution Bench or a Bench of seven-Judges-Hence held that matter should be placed for hearing before a Constitution Bench (of five Judges) and not before a larger Bench of seven Judges.”

10. The similar view was expressed by the Apex Court in the case of Pradip Chandra Parija and others v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik and others, AIR 2002 SC 296, of which reference has been given in the case of Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community (Supra).

11. The observation in this respect