SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(MP) 1157

2003(1) JLJ 105
(SPECIAL BENCH)
Bhawani Singh, C.J., Dipak Misra, K.K. Lahoti, S.L. Jain and
A.K. Shrivastava, JJ.
Jabalpur Bus Operators Association and others v.
State of M.P. and another
W.Ps. No. 177 and 1629 of 2001; Decided on 17.12.2002.

Advocates:
B.K. Rawat for petitioners; S.K. Seth, Addl. Advocate General and
Sanjay K. Agrawal for respondents.

Headnote:(1) Precedent -- decisions of different Benches of Apex Court and High Courts -- how to be followed by other Benches as precedent -- case of conflicting decisions of Co-equal Benches -- which view to be followed.

       Petitioners depend on the decision in Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Municipal Council, Manasa and another (M.P. No. 1540 of 1975). Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur maintains that sub-section (6) of section 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 [(1997(2) JLJ 70].

       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 Benches 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 RN 343] 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 and others v. Smt. Ratna Prahha Dhanda, Indore and others (1989 JLJ 15] and Amar Singh Yadav and another v. Shanti Devi and others (AIR 1987 Patna 191 - (Full Bench). With this background and taking into consideration Apex Court decisions including Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Municipal Corporation and a1lOtlzer (AIR 1995 SC 1480) reference was• made to the 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 ? [Para 2

       Held: With regard to the High Court, a Single Bench is bound by the decision of another Single Bench. In case, he does not agree with the view of the other Single Bench, he should refer the matter to the Larger Bench. Similarly, Division Bench is bound by the judgment of earlier Division Bench. In case, it does not agree with the view of the earlier Division Bench, it should refer the matter to Larger Bench. In case of conflict between judgments of two Division Benches of equal strength, the decision of earlier Division Bench shall be followed except when it is explained by the latter Division Bench in which case the decision of latter Division Bench shall be binding. The decision of Larger Bench is binding on smaller Benches.

       In case of conflict between two decisions of the Apex Court, Benches comprising of equal number of Judges, decision of earlier Bench is binding unless explained by the latter Bench of equal strength, in which case the later decision is binding. Decision of a Larger Bench is binding on smaller Benches. Therefore, the decision of earlier Division Bench, unless distinguished by latter Division Bench, is binding on the High Courts and the subordinate Courts. Similarly, in presence of Division Bench decisions and Larger Bench decisions, the decisions of Lager Bench are binding on the High Courts and the subordinate Courts. ... The common thread which runs through various decisions of Apex Court seems to be that great value has to be attached to precedent which has taken the shape of rule being followed by it for the purpose of consistency and exactness in decisions of Court, unless the Court can clearly distinguish the decision put up as a precedent or is per incuriam, having been rendered without noticing some earlier precedents with which the Court agrees. Full Bench decision in Balbir Singh‘s case (supra) which holds that if there is conflict of views between the two co-equal Benches of the Apex Court, the High Court has to follow the judgment which appears to it to state the law more elaborately and more accurately and in conformity with the scheme of the Act, in our considered opinion, for reasons recorded in the preceding paragraph of this judgment, does not lay down the correct law as to application of precedent and is, therefore, over ruled on this point. 2001 RN 343 = 2001 (2) MPLJ 644 (FB) overruled. AIR 1961 Mys. 3, AIR 1962 Mad. 450 (FB), AIR 1977 All. 1 (FB), AIR 1981 All. 300 (FB), AIR 1980 Born. 341, AIR 1980 Kar. 92 (FB), AIR 1981 P&H 213 (FB), AIR 1982 AP 227, AIR 1988 Col. 1 (Spl B.), AIR 1986 Guj. 81 (FB), AIR 2001 Delhi 82, 1960 JLJ 1078, 1963 JLJ 390, 1985 JLJ 460 (FB), 1980 JLJ 69, 1969 JLJ 499; 1973 JLJ 469, 1973 JLJ 641, 1994(1) MPJR 206, 2000(3) MPLJ 27 discussed and explained. AIR 1959 SC 519, (1975) 1 SCC 11, AIR 1976 SC 2547, (1996) 6 SCC 303, AIR 1967 SC 997, AIR 1989 SC 1933, AIR 1990 SC 261, AIR 1965 SC 1767, (1991) 4 SCC 139, (1991) 5 SCC 410, (2001) 5 SCC 453, (1994) 4 SCC 602, (1995) 1 SCC 58, AIR 1995 SC 1480, (1999) 4 SCC 697, (2001) 2 SCC 135, (2001) 2 SCC 247, (2001) 6 SCC 356, 2002 AIR SCW 3755, 2002(1) MPWN 1 = (2002) 4 SCC 578, (1992) 1 SCC 225 and 2002 AIR SCW 4040 discussed, explained and followed. [Para 9

       (2) Constitution on India -- Art.141 -- provision under -- empowers Apex Court to declare law which becomes the law of land -- all Courts in India are bound to follow the decision of Apex Court -- exception being doctrine of "per incuriam" and "sub-sitentio". [Para 6

       (3) Legal Maxim -- "stage-decisis" -- commonly called ‘‘doctrine of precedent" -- means adherence to decide cases on settled principles -- not to disturb matters which have been established by judicial decisions. [Para 6

       (4) Precedent -- should serve as a rule for future guidance in deciding analogous cases. Words and phrases Permanent Edition Vol. 33 P. 372-73 relied on. [Para 6

       (5) Precedent -- decisions of Apex Court and High Courts -- conflict therein -- how to be resolved.

       There seems no dispute to the proposition that decision of Larger Bench of the Apex Court is binding on smaller Bench of the same Court and the High Courts. The difficulty arises in case of conflict between the two decisions by Benches consisting of same number of Judges, whether to follow the earlier or later and in absence of the Apex Court decision, similar difficulty may arise with regard to the High Court decisions. The normal rule is that in the absence of any decision of the Apex Court, subordinate Courts are bound to follow the decisions of High Court to which they are subordinate, and where conflict is between the judgments of a Single Bench and Division Bench, Division Bench decision will have to be followed and where there is conflict between Division Bench and Larger Bench, the‘ decision of Larger Bench has to be followed. But where the conflict is between two decisions pronounce by Benches consisting of same number of Judges, difficulty arises which decision is to be followed. [Para 6

       (6) Precedent -- two decisions of Benches consisting of same strength of judges conflicting -- one Bench not competent to overrule or decide its correctness -- matter should be referred to larger Bench. (1985) 4 SCC 369 followed. [Para 8

       (7) Precedent -- a Bench of lesser strength -- is bound to follow view of larger Bench. AIR 2002 SC 662, (2000) 4 SCC 130, (1998) 9 SCC 202 and (2000) 5 SCC 113 discussed. [Para 8

       (8) Natural Justice -- principles of -- are integral part of ‘rule of reason‘ -- statutory authority is required to record reasons in its order even in absence of provision in statute. 1980 JLJ 69 overruled and 1969 JLJ 499 approved in 1985 JLJ 460 (FB). [Para 3

       ¼1½ iwoZ fu.kZ; && mPpre U;k;ky; rFkk mPp U;k;ky;ksa dh fofHkUu U;k;ihBksa ds fofu‘p; && iwoZ fu.kZ; ds :i esa vU; U;k;ihBksa }kjk fdl izdkj vuqlj.k fd;k tkuk pkfg, && leku vf/kdkj;qDr U;k;ihBksa ds fojks/kkHkklh fofu‘p;ksa dk ekeyk && dkSu&ls fofu‘p; dk vuqlj.k fd;k tkuk gksxkA

       ;kphx.k us e/; izns‘k jkT; lM+d ifjogu fuxe fo- uxjikfydk ifj"kn~] euklk rFkk ,d vU; ¼izdh.kZ ;kfpdk Ø- 1540 lu~ 1975½ voyac fy;k gSA uxjikfyd fuxe] tcyiqj dk nkok gS fd 1956 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 132 dh mi/kkjk ¼6½ esa mls viuh {ks=h; lhek ds Hkhrj ;kuksa dh izfof"V ij dj mn~x`ghr djus ds fy, izkf/kd`r fd;k x;k gSA mlus Nkouh cksMZ] egw fo- e/;izns‘k jkT; lM+d ifjogu fuxe ¿1997¼2½ ts ,y ts 70À dk voyac ysuk pkgk gSA ¿ iSjk 1

       Jh ch-ds- jkor dk ladFku gS fd uxjikfydk ifj"kn~] euklk ¼iwoksZDr½ ds ekeys esa mPpre U;k;ky; dk fofu‘p; i‘pkr~orhZ fofu‘p; gS] vr%] mldk vuqlj.k fd;k tkuk pkfg,] tcfd Jh lat; ds- vxzoky us fuosnu fd;k fd bl fofu‘p; esa Nkouh cksMZ] egw ¼iwoksZDr½ esa fd, x, fofu‘p; ds izHkko ij /;ku ugha fn;k x;k gS] i‘pkr~orhZ fofu‘p; ds fo:) iwoZrj fofu‘p; vfHkHkkoh gksuk pkfg,A blfy, ,d ds fo:) nwljs ds vuqlj.k dh bZIlk djrs gq, nksuksa vksj ds fo}ku dkmUlsyksa us fuosnu fd;k fd f}&lnLh; U;k;ihBksa }kjk fd, x, mPpre U;k;ky; ds nksuksa fofu‘p;ksa esa fojks/k gSA blds vfrfjDr] uxjikfyd fuxe] bankSj rFkk vU; fo- Jherh jRuizHkk <aMk] bankSj rFkk vU; ¿1989 ts ,y ts 15À rFkk vejflag ;kno rFkk ,d vU; fo- ‘kkafrnsoh rFkk vU; ¿, vkb vkj 1987 iVuk 191 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½À esa bl U;k;ky; ds fofu‘p; dk vuqlj.k djrs gq, e-iz- jkT; fo- cyohj flag ¿2001 jk fu 343À esa bl U;k;ky; ds iw.kZ U;k;ihB fofu‘p; esa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd mPpre U;k;ky; dh leku U;k;ihBksa ds fofu‘p;ksa esa ijLij&fojks/k gksus dh n‘kk esa mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ml fu.kZ; dk vuqlj.k fd;k tkuk pkfg, tks mls vf/kd foLr`r vkSj vf/kd lgh vkSj vf/kfu;e dh ;kstuk ds vuq:i izrhr gksA bl i`"BHkwfe esa] rFkk bafM;u vkby dkiksZjs‘ku fy- fo- uxjikfyd fuxe rFkk ,d vU; ¿, vkb vkj 1995 ,l lh 1480À lfgr vU; ekeyksa esa mPpre U;k;ky; ds fofu‘p;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, fof/k ds fuEufyf[kr iz‘u ij fopkj ds fy, c`gÙkj U;k;ihB ds funsZ‘k fd;k x;k %

       mPpre U;k;ky; dh leku U;k;ihBksa }kjk fd, x, fofu‘p;ksa esa ijLijfojks/kh n`f"Vdks.kksa dh n‘kk esa mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fdl n`f"Vdks.k dk vuqlj.k fd;k tk,xk\ ¿ iSjk 2

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % mPp U;k;ky; ds ckjs esa] ,dy U;k;ihB vU; ,dy U;k;ihB ds fofu‘p; ls vkc) gSA ;fn ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k vU; ,dy U;k;ihB ds n`f"Vdks.k ls lger ugha gks rc mUgsa ml ekeys dks c`gÙkj U;k;ihB dks funsZf‘kr ls vkc) gSa ;fn og iwoZrj [kaM U;k;ihB ds fofu‘p; ls lger ugha gks rc mlds }kjk ekeyk c`gÙkj U;k;ihB dks funsZf‘kr fd;k tkuk pkfg,A leku lkeF;Z dh nks [kaM U;k;ihBksa ds fofu‘p;ksa esa fojks/k dh n‘kk esa iwoZrj [kaM U;k;ihB ds fofu‘p; dk vuqlj.k fd;k tk,xk] flok; rc tc mls i‘pkr~orhZ [kaM U;k;ihB }kjk Li"V fd;k x;k gks] ftl n‘kk esa i‘pkr~orhZ [kaM U;k;ihB dk fofu‘p; ck/;dj gksxkA c`gÙkj U;k;ihB dk fofu‘p;] y?kqrj U;k;ihBksa ds fy, ck/;dj gSA

       mPpre U;k;ky; ds nks fofu‘p;ksa esa fojks/k dh n‘kk esa] tc U;k;ihBksa esa U;k;k/kh‘kksa dh la[;k leku gks rc iwoZrj U;k;ihB dk fofu‘p; ck/;dj gksrk gS] flok; rc tc leku la[;k dh i‘pkr~orhZ U;k;ihB }kjk Li"Vhd`r gks] ftl n‘kk esa i‘pkr~orhZ fofu‘p; ck/;dj gksrk gSA c`gÙkj U;k;ihB dk fofu‘p; y?kqrj U;k;ihBksa ds fy, ck/;dj gksrk gSA vr%] iwoZrj [kaM U;k;ihB dk fofu‘p;] tc rd i‘pkr~orhZ [kaM U;k;ihB }kjk izHksfnr ugha gks] mPp U;k;ky;ksa rFkk v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa ds fy, ck/;dj gSA blh izdkj] tc [kaM U;k;ihB ds fofu‘p; rFkk c`gÙkj U;k;ihB ds fofu‘p; fo|eku gksa rc mPp U;k;ky;ksa rFkk v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa ij c`gÙkj U;k;ihB ds fofu‘p; ck/;dj gSaA ---- mPpre U;k;ky; ds fofHkUu fofu‘p;ksa esa tks lkekU; lw= gS] og ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd ml iwoZ fu.kZ; dks vR;f/kd ewY; fn;k tkuk gksrk gS tks U;k;ky; ds fofu‘p;ksa esa lkeatL; rFkk lqfuf‘prrk ds iz;kstukFkZ U;k;ky; }kjk vuqlfjr fofu.kZ; ds :i esa izofrZr gks x;k gS] tc rd iwoZ fu.kZ; ds :i esa izLrqr fd, x, fofu‘p; dks U;k;ky; }kjk Li"Vr% izHksfnr ugha fd;k tk ldk gks vFkok og dqN ,sls iwoZ fu.kZ;ksa dks fopkj esa fy, fcuk] vuo/kkurk ds dkj.k fn;k x;k gks ftuls U;k;ky; lger gksA cyohj flag ¼iwoksZDr½ ds ekeys esa iw.kZ U;k;ihB ds fofu‘p; esa] ftlesa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd ;fn mPpre U;k;ky; dh nks leku vf/kdkj;qDr U;k;ihBksa ds n`f"Vdks.k esa fojks/k gks rc mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ml fu.kZ; dk vuqlj.k fd;k tkuk gksxk ftlesa ls izrhr gks fd fof/k vf/kd foLr`r :i ls vkSj vf/kd lgh vkSj vf/kfu;e dh ;kstuk ds vuq:i dfFkr gS] bl fu.kZ; ds iwoZrj iSjk esa vfHkfyf[kr dkj.ko‘k gekjh lqfopkfjr jk; esa iwoZ fu.kZ; ykxw gksus ds ckjs esa lgh fof/k vf/kdfFkr ugha gS] vr%] mls bl fcanq ij myVk tkrk gSA 2001 jk fu 343 ¾ 2001¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 644 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ myVk x;kA , vkb vkj 1961 eSlwj 3] , vkb vkj 1962 enzkl 450 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½] , vkb vkj 1977 byk- 1 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½] , vkb vkj 1981 byk- 300 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½] , vkb vkj 1980 cacbZ 341] , vkb vkj 1980 dukZ- 92 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½] , vkb vkj 1981 ia- rFkk gfj- 213 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½] , vkb vkj 1982 vka-iz- 227] , vkb vkj 1988 dy- 1 ¼fo‘ks"k U;k;ihB½] , vkb vkj 1986 xqt- 8 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½] , vkb vkj 2001 fnYyh 82] 1960 ts ,y ts 1078] 1963 ts ,y ts 390] 1985 ts ,y ts 460 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½] 1980 ts ,y ts 69] 1969 ts ,y ts 499] 1973 ts ,y ts 469] 1973 ts ,y ts 641] 1994¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts vkj 206] 2000¼3½ ,e ih ,y ts 27 foosfpr rFkk Li"Vhd`rA , vkb vkj 1959 ,l lh 519] ¼1975½ 1 , lh lh 11] , vkb vkj 1976 ,l lh 2547] ¼1996½ 6 ,l lh lh 303] , vkb vkj 1967 ,l lh 997] , vkb vkj 1989 ,l lh 1933] , vkb vkj 1990 ,l lh 261] , vkb vkj 1965 ,l lh 1767] ¼1991½ 4 ,l lh lh 139] ¼1991½ 5 ,l lh lh 410] ¼2001½ 5 ,l lh lh 453] ¼1994½ 4 ,l lh lh 602] ¼1995½ 1 ,l lh lh 58] , vkb vkj 1995 ,l lh 1480] ¼1999½ 4 ,l lh lh 697] ¼2001½ 2 ,l lh lh 135] ¼2001½ 2 ,l lh lh 247] ¼2001½ 6 ,l lh lh 356] 2002 , vkb vkj ,l lh MCY;w 3755] 2002¼1½ ,e ih MCY;w ,u 1 ¾ ¼2002½ 4 ,l lh lh 578] ¼1992½ 1 ,l lh lh 225 rFkk 2002 , vkb vkj ,l lh MCY;w 4040 foosfpr] Li"Vhd`r rFkk vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 9

       ¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 141 && mica/k && mPpre U;k;ky; dks ,slh fof/k ?kksf"kr djus ds fy, l‘kDr fd;k x;k gS tks ns‘kfof/k cu tk, && Hkkjr ds leLr U;k;ky; mPpre U;k;ky; ds fofu‘p; dk vuqlj.k djus dks vkc) gSa && viokn ^vuo/kkurk ds dkj.k* rFkk ^ekSu jgrs gq,* ikfjr fu.kZ;ksa dk gSA ¿ iSjk 6

       ¼3½ fof/kd lw= && ^fu.khZrkuqlj.k* && lkekU;r% ^iwoZ fu.kZ; dk fl)kar* dgk tkrk gS && vFkZ gS] LFkkfir fl)karksa ds vk/kkj ij ekeys fofuf‘pr djus dh vuq‘kfDr && mu fo"k;ksa dks fo{kqC/k ugha djuk ftUgsa U;kf;d fofu‘p;ksa }kjk LFkkfir dj fn;k x;k gSA ¿ iSjk 6

       ¼4½ iwoZ fu.kZ; && Hkfo"; esa ln`‘k ekeyksa ds fofu‘p;u esa ekxZn‘kZu ds fy, fofu.kZ; ds :i esa iz;qDr gksuk pkfg,A oMZ~l~ ,aM Ýstst] LFkk;h laLdj.k ftYn 33 i`"B 372&73 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 6

       ¼5½ iw.kZ fu.kZ; && mPpre U;k;ky; rFkk mPp U;k;ky;ksa ds fofu‘p; && muesa ijLij&fojks/k && dSls fujkdj.k fd;k tk,A

       bl izfriknuk ij dksbZ fookn izrhr ugha gksrk fd mPpre U;k;ky; dh c`gÙkj U;k;ihB dk fofu‘p; mlh U;k;ky; dh y?kqrj U;k;ihB dks rFkk mPp U;k;ky;ksa dks vkc)dj gSA dfBukbZ mlh la[;k ds U;k;k/kh‘kksa dh U;k;ihBksa }kjk fd, x, nks fofu‘p;ksa esa fojks/k dh n‘kk esa vkrh gS] fd iwoZrj fofu‘p; dk vuqlj.k fd;k tk, ;k i‘pkr~orhZ dk] rFkk mPpre U;k;ky; ds fofu‘p; ds vHkko esa ,slh&gh dfBukbZ mPp U;k;ky; ds fofu‘p;ksa ds ckjs esa vk ldrh gSA lkekU; fu;e gS fd mPpre U;k;ky ds fofu‘p; ds vHkko esa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ml mPp U;k;ky; ds fofu‘p;ksa dk vuqlj.k djus dks vkc) gSa ftlds og v/khuLFk gSa] rFkk tgk¡ fojks/k ,dy U;k;ihB vkSj [kaM U;k;ihB ds fu.kZ; esa gS ogk¡ [kaM U;k;ihB ds fofu‘p; dk vuqlj.k fd;k tkuk gksxk] rFkk tgk¡ fojks/k [kaM U;k;ihB vkSj c`gÙkj U;k;ihB ds fofu‘p;ksa esa gS ogk¡ c`gÙkj U;k;ihB ds fofu‘p; dk vuqlj.k fd;k tkuk gksxkA ijarq tgk¡ mlh la[;k ds U;k;k/kh‘kksa okyh U;k;kihBksa }kjk fn, x, nks fofu‘p;ksa esa fojks/k gS] ogk¡ ;g dfBukbZ vkrh gS fd fdl fofu‘p; dk vuqlj.k fd;k tkuk gksxkA ¿ iSjk 6

       ¼6½ iwoZ fu.kZ; && U;k;k/kh‘kksa dh leku la[;k okyh U;k;ihBksa ds nks ijLij&fojks/kh fofu‘p; && ,d U;k;ihB nwljh U;k;ihB ds fofu‘p; dks myVus ;k mldh ‘kq)rk fofuf‘pr djus ds fy, l{ke ugha && ekeyk c`gÙkj U;k;ihB dks funsZf‘kr fd;k tkuk pkfg,A ¼1985½ 4 ,l lh lh 369 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 8

       ¼7½ iwoZ fu.kZ; && de la[;k esa U;k;k/kh‘kksa okyh U;k;ihB && c`gÙkj U;k;ihB ds n`f"Vdks.k dk vuqlj.k djus dks ck/; gSA , vkb vkj 2002 ,l lh 662] ¼2000½ 4 ,l lh lh 130] ¼1998½ 9 ,l lh lh 202 rFkk ¼2000½ 5 ,l lh lh 113 foosfprA ¿ iSjk 8

       ¼8½ uSlfxZd U;k; && fl)kar && ^;qfDr;qDrrk ds fu;e* dk vfuok;Z Hkkx gS && dkuwu esa mica/k dh vfo|ekurk esa Hkh dkuwuh izkf/kdkjh ls visf{kr gS fd og vius vkns‘k esa dkj.k vfHkfyf[kr djsA 1985 ts ,y ts 460 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ esa 1980 ts ,y ts 69 myVk x;k rFkk 1969 ts ,y ts 499 vuqeksfnrA ¿ iSjk 3

JUDGMENT

Singh, C.J. -- 1. Petitioners in both the Writ Petitions (W.P. No. 177 of 2001 Jahalpur 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-section (6) of section 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 section 3 of the M.P. Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam 1991 (for short The Act of 1991). Section 6 of the Act of 1991 is similar to section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1941 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 and another (M.P. No. 1540 of 1975). Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur maintains that sub-section (6) of section 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 (1997(2) JLJ 70 = 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 RN 343 = 2001(2) MPLJ 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 and others v. Smt. Ratna Prabha Dhanda, Indore and others (1989 JLJ 15 = 1989 MPLJ 20) and Amar Singh Yadav and another v. Shanti Devi and others (AIR 1987 Patna 191 (Full Bench). With this background and taking into consideration Apex Court decisions including Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Municipal Corporation and another (AIR 1995 SC 1480), one of us (Dipak Misra, J.) thought it apposite that law laid down in Balveer Singh's case (supra) requires re-consideration, 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,





















































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top