ORDER

Petitioner an Electrical Contractor has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents especially respondent No.3 to release the payment of the petitioner for the work carried out by the petitioner under 'Sobhagya Yojna Scheme' under which he had carried out work of supply of material, survey, installation, testing and commissioning of 11 KV line, 11/4 KV distribution transformers and LT line for un-electrified household in terms of the NIT dated 23.10.2018.

It is submitted that as per Clause 6 of the NIT defect liability period was 12 months from the date of taking over/completion of facilities or any part thereof in case of 11 KV line and LT line and 24 months for distribution transformers but instead of making payment respondents have issued recovery notice dated 13.12.2021 beyond the period of defect liability.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court through order dated 22.12.2021 passed in W.P. No.28386/2021 (Annexure P-4) in which as an interim measure, the effect and operation of the order dated 13.12.2021 (Annexure P-1) was stayed.

It is also submitted that under similar facts and circumstances a Coordinate Bench has issued notices in W.P. No.20515/2022 and W.P.

No.20024/2022. Placing reliance on the order of Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A. No.880/2022 where Hon'ble Division Bench has held that on the ground of parity, the appellant too would be entitled to a similar interim relief. When it is noted even by the learned Singh Judge that there have been four cases in which interim relief has been granted, necessarily the appellant would also be entitled to the same. To deny him the interim relief only because of the fact that the matter requires to be heard finally in our prima facie view may not be appropriate.

Placing reliance on this judgment it is submitted that since Coordinate Bench has issued notices in two cases petitioner is entitled to issuance of notice in the present case as a matter of right.

'Precedent', refers to a court decision that is considered as authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts, or similar issues.

'Precedent', is incorporated into the doctrine of 'stare decisis', and requires courts to apply the law in the same manner to cases with the same facts.

'Judicial precedent', is the source of law where past decisions create law for Judges to refer back to for guidance in future cases. Meaning of doctrine of "stare decisis" to "stand by decided matters".

Thus, I am not in a position to agree that merely issuance of a notice by a Coordinate Bench, under which provision of law, can be considered to be a binding precedent as it does not lay down any proposition of law to be followed in future.

Question of judicial discipline will arise when a decision is rendered by a forum of superior or concurrent jurisdiction while adjudicating the rights of the parties to a lis embodying a declaration of law. I do not see any declaration of law in the discretion of a Coordinate Bench to issue notice in the matter.

As far as order dated 22.02.2021 is concerned. A perusal of the present writ petition reveals that under Point No.8, dealing with interim relief, if prayed for, petitioner has mentioned nil. Thus it is evident that when petitioner himself is not praying interim relief in the present petition he is not entitled to seek any parity with the orders of Coordinate Bench passed in W.P. No.28386/2021.

Issue involved is that whether in a contractual manner there exists an agreement which has not been brought on record by the petitioner and admittedly there is a pleading that there are disputes between the petitioner and the respondents in regard to payment of dues, inasmuch as, respondents have issued a recovery notice against the petitioner, whether writ can be issued in a matter involving disputed questions of fact.

Aforesaid question has been answered