( 1 ) TWO learned Judges of this Court who heard this petition, having disagreed on a vital question of constitutional import, this matter has come up before me to resolve the conflict, on an order passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice in that regard. The Presiding Judge (K. M. Agrawal, J.) has dismissed, by his order dated 26-3-1991, the writ petition holding that by efflux of time, the petition had become infructuous and further that in the changed circumstances, alternative remedy, of civil suit was available. His Companion Judge (K. M. Pandey, J.), on the other hand, by his order dated 27-3-1991, held that the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition had no force and the petition should be heard on merits. Accordingly, the learned Judges recorded jointly the order that they had reached different conclusions in their separate orders on the preliminary objection about maintainability of the petition and as such the controversy needed to be resolved by a Third Judge or by Larger Bench, as may be ordered by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

( 2 ) DECEPTIVELY simple though the controversy may appear, during the course of hearing the matter, I found