( 1 ) TWO questions have been referred to us by a Division Bench. It will be useful to state the circumstances leading to this reference:- (i) Firm Ladhuram Rameshwardayal, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, sought a writ of mandamus and/or certiorari, inter alia, to quash the electoral roll and also to quash the election programme in connection with an election to the Agriculture Market equivalent Citation:

Committee of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Shivpuri. (ii) The petition was heard by a Division Bench of Raina, J. and bhacha-wat, J. They differed. In the opinion of Raina, J. the petition was to be dismissed. In the opinion of Bhachawat, J. the petition was to be allowed inasmuch as the voters list and the whole programme of the election were invalid and consequently the election which had taken place was also to be quashed. (iii) Accordingly, they directed the case to be placed before the Chief justice for nominating a Bench under Rule 11 of Chapter I of the High court Rules. (iv) The Chief Justice nominated Lodha, J. as the third Judge. (v) Lodha, J. , in his order, directed as follows:-" in view of my foregoing conclusions, I partly allow this petition and quash the Electoral Roll (Annexure 2) and direct that a fresh Electoral Roll be prepared in accordance with law on the lines indicated above and election for constituting the market committee be held thereafter in accordance with law. The election held during the pendency of this petition is quashed. There will be no order as tocosts. In other words, he agreed with Bhachawat J. (vi) The Registry then placed the matter before the Chief justice who constituted a Division Bench of Vyas, J, and Bhachawat, J. (because, in the meantime, Raina, J. had taken over as Chairman of the industrial Court, Indore, and was not available to sit in the High court ). (vii) When the opinion of Lodha, J. was placed before the Division bench of Vyas, J. and Bhachawat, J. , a question cropped up whether that Bench, constituted as it was, and which had not heard the matter on merits at any stage, could decide the case in accordance with the opinion of the majority. They agreed with each other that this question be decided by a larger Bench. However, Bhachawat, J. was of the opinion that one more question should be referred to the larger bench along with the abovesaid question, on which they both agreed. Thus, again, a difference of opinion arose between Vyas, J. and bhachawat, J. as to the questions to be referred to the larger Bench. (viii) This difference was resolved by a third Judge (Chief Justice), who said that as it was a matter of procedure and of general importance, the other question may also be referred to a larger Bench which is to be constituted for the first question. Equivalent Citation:

( 2 ) IT is thus that the matter has come before us and the two questions which we have to answer are these:-

" (1) When on account of difference of opinion between two Judges constituting a Division Bench, a matter is referred to, under Rule 11 of Chapter I of the High Court Rules, a third Judge nominated by the chief Justice under Clause 26 of the Letters Patent who, after formulating the point or points of difference between the Judges of the Division Bench, gives his decision, then can any other Division bench of which one or both the Judges were not members of the division Bench which originally heard the case, give its decision in accordance with the majority of the opinion of the Judges of the referring Bench as well as of the referee Bench? (2) When on a difference of opinion between the two Judges constituting the Division Bench, the matter is referred to a third Judge and the third Judge while expressing his opinion on the point of difference passed a final order, disposing of the matter referred to him and does not return the matter to the Division Bench, can the matter be said to be pending and can the Chief Justice suo motu order for its being list