VISHNU TRADERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Shri Harish Salve, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Ms Indu Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondent who was asked to take notice.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the conditions for grant of stay vary widely from bench to bench in the High court and that while in an earlier case CWP No. 6074 of 1993 and connected cases, a division bench had ordered unconditional stay on 17/6/1993 and continued the same order on 7/9/1993, in the present case the bench had imposed a condition of payment of 25 per cent of the demand.

(3.) In the matters of interlocutory orders, principle of binding precedents cannot be said to apply. However, the need for consistency of approach and uniformity in the exercise of judicial discretion respecting similar causes and the desirability to eliminate occasions for grievances of discriminatory treatment requires that all similar matters should receive similar treatment except where factual differences require a different treatment so that there is assurance of consistency, uniformity, predictability and certainty of judicial approach.