BIRAN DEVI Vs. SECHU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A learned single Judge, vide his order dated 6.5.1999, opined that in view of the Full Bench judgment (delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J., Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. N. Khare and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. N. Mehrotra, the first two have been elevated to the Hon'ble Supreme Court) in Ganga Saran v. Civil Judge. Hapur and others, 1991 ACJ 186 : 1991 (1) AWC 213, this writ petition filed for quashing the order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Varanasi, refusing to grant interim injunction in favour of the petitioner and that part of the appellate order passed by the Additional District Judge, Varanasi, affirming the same, is not maintainable, but as the learned counsel for the writ petitioner relied upon a single Judge judgment of this Court in Ram Singh v. Special Judge and others, 1992 (Supp 2) RD 362, which, relying upon Dwarika Nath v. Income Tax Officer, AIR 1966 SC 81 and M. V. Elisabeth and others v. Harman Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd., JT 1992 (2) SC 65, had explained away the Full Bench decision. He further opined that the said decision is contrary to the Full Bench decision and referred the matter to a larger Bench for reconsideration of the decision of the learned single Judge. The Hon'ble Chief Justice, vide his order dated 31.8.1999 directed placing this case before a Bench presided over by one of us (Binod Kumar Roy, J.), that is how this case has been placed before us.

(2.) The following two questions were formulated for adjudication by the three Judges Full Bench of this Court in Ganga Saran (supra) :

(3.) Sitting singly, a learned Judge (Sakha Ram Singh. J.) in Ram Singh v. Special Judge and others, 1992 (Supp 2) RD 362, after noticing the ratio laid down by the Full Bench in Ganga Saran (supra) proceeded to pose a doubt in following words : "What is in doubt is whether a writ of mandamus against a private person can be issued if such private person is not under any statutory obligations to perform a public duty for the performance of which a writ of mandamus is normally issued." and held that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can also pass any order including an order of injunction against a private individual in exercise of its inherent power after referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dwarika Nath v. Income Tax Officer, AIR 1966 SC 81 and M. V. Elisabeth and others v. Herman Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd.. JT 1992 (21 SC 65 : AIR 1993 SC 1014.