( 1 ) PETITIONERS in both the Writ Petitions (W. P. No. 177 of 2001 Jabalpur Bus Operators Association and others v. The State of M. P. and another and W. P. No. 1629 of 2001 Daya Chand Jain v. State of M. P. and another) have challenged the competence of Municipal corporation to impose toll on the entry of vehicles within the Municipal Limits under sub-sec. (6) of S. 132 of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short the Act of 1956) and submit that the entry tax is being collected from the bus owners without any authority: more so when tax is being paid under S. 3 of the M. P. Motoryan Adhiniyam, 1991 (for short The Act of 1991 ). Section 6 of the Act of 1991 is similar to S. 6 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 which imposes bar on any local authority to impose tax in respect of the motor vehicles in question. Contention is that tax is being paid by the petitioners for use of roads maintained by the State, therefore, they can bring in and take out the buses from the bus-stand since they pay tax for it. Petitioners depend on the decision in Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Municipal Council, Mansa (M. P. No. 1540 of 1975 ). Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur maintains that sub-sec. (6) of S. 132 of the Act of 1956 authorises it to levy tax on entry of vehicles within its territorial limits. It seeks sustenance on the decision in Cantonment Board, Mhow v. Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 1997 SC 2013.

( 2 ) ). Shri B. K. Rawat contended that decision of Apex Court in Municipal Council, Mansa (supra) is a later decision, therefore, it should be followed while Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal submitted that since this decision does not consider the effect of earlier decision in Cantonment Board. Mhow (supra), earlier decision should prevail as against the later. Therefore, learned Counsel for both sides submitted that there is a conflict between the two decisions of the Apex Court, both rendered by two Judge Bench seeking to follow one against the other. Besides, there is Full Bench decision of this court in State of M. P. v. Balveer Singh (2001)2 M. P. L. J. 644 holding that in case of conflict between decisions of co-equal Benches of Apex Court. High Court should follow the judgment which appears to it more elaborate and more accurate and in conformity with the scheme of the Act, following decision of this court in Municipal Corporation. Indore v. Smt. Ratnaprabha Dhanda, Indore, 1989 M. P. L. J. 20 and Amar Singh Yadav v. Shanti Devi, AIR 1987 Patna 191 (Full Bench ). With this background and taking into consideration Apex Court decisions including Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Municipal Corporation, AIR 1995 SC 1480, one of us (Dipak Misra, J.) thought it apposite that law laid down in Balveer Singh's case (supra) requires reconsideration, consequently, made reference to Larger Bench for consideration of the following question of law. " In case of conflicting views between the decisions rendered by the co-equal Benches of the Apex Court, which view is to be followed by the High Court as a binding precedent?"before considering the Apex Court decisions on this question, appropriate, it is to refer to the decisions of various High Courts since this question has confronted not only the High Courts but also the Apex Court from time to time, realising that theory of precedent and mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution of India requires exact approach by Courts to make the law clear, consistent and exact so that people and the Courts which are bound to follow them are not put to choice for following one or the other decisions and or be in a dilemma what to do.

( 3 ) IN M/s New Krishna Bhavan, Malleswaram Bangalore-3 v. Commercial Tax Officer, No. IV Circle (Addl.) Bangalore air 1961 Mysore 3, it has been said in paragraph 10 that :"10. In my opinion, the view expressed by the majority of the Judges on this point in the case reported in AIR 1959 SC 648 is binding