ANIL PUKHARIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It was vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sabhajit Tiwary v. Union of India and others, (1975) 1 SCC 485, has become obsolete in view of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia, etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others, AIR 1981 SC 487, P. K. Ramachandra Iyer and others v. Union of India and others, (1984) 2 SCC 141 and U. P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited v. Chandra Bhan Dubey and others, (1999) 1 SCC 741 and several other subsequent pronouncements, hence, the writ petition should be entertained as the action of the respondents the CDRI is totally non-est.

(2.) The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner has substantial force. Much water has flown since the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India and others (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent years have enlarged the jurisdiction of the Court in entertaining the writ petitions against the order passed by the other instrumentalities of the State like ICAR. In an every-fast changing society, the law should also be vibrant and dynamic. It cannot remain static.

(3.) The doctrine of stare decisis cannot stall the progress of law as the Courts often reconsider its own judgments and pronouncements.