9. Moreover, there is a principle known as ''comity of Judges'.
Particularly when the issue relates to High Court itself, such
principle has to be applied for taking uniform stand, if not, make an
observation to place the matter before the appropriate Court which
had passed original order, that too when it is of a Division Bench,
whose order has a binding effect, but not to show any judicial overactivism at the behest of handful of persons. In this regard, we have
come across the judgements reported in (State of U.P. v. C.L.
Agrawal), 1997 (5) SCC 1 (Furest Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal
Exports Ltd.),2001 (6) SCC 356 (State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Narmada Bachao Andolan), 2011 (7) SCC 639 (Rattiram v. State
of M.P.), 2012 (4) SCC 516 and (U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Rajesh
Kumar)., 2012 (7) SCC 1 In Furest Day Lawson Ltd. (supra) the
Supreme Court has held that a prior decision of the Court on
identical facts and law binds the Court on the same points of law in
a latter case. This is not an exceptional case by inadvertence or
oversight of any judgement or statutory provisions running counter
to the reason and result reached. Unless it is a glaring case of
obtrusive omission, it is not desirable to depend on the principle of
judgement "per incuriam". In U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. (supra) it has been held by the Supreme Court that judicial discipline commands in
such a situation when there is disagreement, to refer the matter to a
larger Bench. It is hardly necessary to emphasise that
considerations of judicial propriety and decorum require that if a
learned Single Judge hearing a matter is inclined to take the view
that the earlier decisions of the High Court, whether of a Division
Bench or of a Single Judge, need to be reconsidered, he should not
embark upon that enquiry sitting as a Single Judge, but should refer
the matter to a Division Bench or, in a proper case, place the
relevant papers before the Chief Justice to enable him to constitute a
larger Bench to examine the question. That is the proper and
traditional way to deal with such matters and it is founded on
healthy principles of judicial decorum and propriety. It is to be
regretted that the learned Single Judge departed from this
traditional way in the present case and chose to examine the
question himself. It was further held that one must remember that
pursuit of the law, howsoever, glamorous it is, has its own limitation
on the Bench. In a multi-Judge court, the Judges are bound by
precedents and procedure. They could use their discretion only when
there is no declared principle to be found, no rule and no authority.
The judicial decorum and legal propriety demand that where a
learned Single Judge or a Division Bench does not agree with the
decision of a Bench of coordinate jurisdiction, the matter should be
referred to a larger Bench. It is a subversion of judicial process not
to follow this procedure. The Supreme Court has also held that
judicial enthusiasm should not obliterate the profound responsibility
that is expected from the Judges.
[Emphasis suppled]
Used in Judgement of
Lahore High court
WP- Criminal Proceeding
9027-17
2018 LHC 1465
0 Comments