M M YARAGATTI Vs. VASANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following two questions have been referred to be decided by a iarger Bench :-

(2.) This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution calling in question the legality of the order made by the District Judge under sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Karnataka Rant Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred 10 as 'the Act'). An office objection was raised as to how in v.iew of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Krishnaji Venkatesh Shirodkar v. Gurupad Shiv.ram Kavalekar (ILR (Karnataka) 1978(2) 1585) a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was maintainable. Before the Learned Single Judge a contention was sought to be raised that in the wake cf the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad (AIR 1980 SC 892) the law laid down in Krishnaji Venkatesh Shirodkar's case was no ionger good law. Finding that the question raised was of importance and deserv.ed to be decided by a Div.ision Bench, a reference was made by the Learned Single Judge under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act. Thereafter, the matter came up for hearing before a Div.ision Bench, and, as earlier observ.ed, the aforesaid two questions hav.e been referred to be decided by a Full Bench. This is how we are seized of the matter.

(3.) Before adverting to the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties if would be appropriate to notice some relevant prov.isions of the Act before the Amendment Act No. 31/1975 and after the Amendment Act. Section 3(d) of the Act defines 'Court' as follows : -