BIRENDRA KUMAR RAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The proceedings before this court are by nomination of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice upon a difference of opinion between two Hon'ble Judges, who after having delivered their judgments desires the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to place the matter before a third judge.

(2.) A situation like this occurred in this court more than 100 years ago to which this court will refer to later. But, at the present moment it would be best to take recourse to the charter of this court known as Rules of the Court, 1952, the successor to the Letters Patent which established the High Court. The situation has arisen as learned counsel arguing for the petitioner has cautioned the court that he has reservation that the reference which has been made may not be compatible with the High Court Rules and it may not be misunderstood later that the situation was not brought to the court's notice.

(3.) At present, the court is not going into the merits of the matter. Suffice it to say that the Bench comprising of the Hon'ble Girdhar Malviya, J. and the Hon'ble K. K. Chaubey, J rendered a decision signed, sealed and delivered on the same day being 23/04/1991. The Hon'ble Presiding Judge allowed the petition and set at liberty the detenu. The other Hon'ble Judge dismissed the petition upholding the detention. The detention order was under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. After the judgment had been delivered, the judges continued to constitute the Bench and agreed to disagree by passing the following orders:-