KANNAPPAN Vs. RTO ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decision of M. P. Menon, J. in Eastern Sea Food (P) Ltd. v. R T. A. and others ( 1985 KLJ 968 ) was overruled by us in Velayudhan Nadar v. State of Kerala ( 1986 KLT 633 ), by judgment delivered on 3rd April, 1986, just before the summer vacation. When the same question arose before the same learned Judge in this Writ Petition soon after the vacation, the learned Judge, instead of following the Division Bench ruling, binding on the single Bench reiterated his own view expressed in the decision overruled, and referred the case to a larger "Bench" by a lengthy reference order dated 10th July, 1986. In an unprecedent move the reference order itself was marked for reporting and the same is reported in Kannappan v. R.T.O. ( 1986 KLT 911 ). The learned Judge has observed in the reference order that our Bench decision has left "many a precedent of this court in shambles" obviously because we "were not cautioned by counsel against such an inherent danger". When the learned Judge was pressed by the Government Pleader to follow the Division Bench ruling, that was brushed aside by the remark:-

(2.) There can be no "hesitation" for a single Judge to follow a Division Bench ruling binding on the single Bench for, he is bound in law to follow the Division Bench decision. The fact that the views of the learned Judge did not find acceptance at the bands of the Division Bench does not mean that whenever the identical question is raised before the learned Judge, the matter has to be again referred to a Division Bench till the views of the single Judge are endorsed by a Division or Full Bench. Brought op in the highest traditions of judicial discipline, this court cannot at any time swerve from the path of judicial decorum and propriety. We shall content ourselves by a quotation from the decision of the Supreme Court in Asstt. Collector, C. E., Chandran Nagar v. Dunlop India Ltd. ( AIR 1985 SC 330 ) thus:-

(3.) Reiterating the same principle, in a very recent ruling of the Supreme Court in Shyamarju v. U. V. Bhat ( AIR 1987 SC 2323 ) came down very heavily on a Division Bench which did not follow the Full Bench decision of the same court.