PREM CHANDRA AND Vs. COLLECTOR FAIZABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It appears that the maintainability of this bunch of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was doubted by one of the Hon'ble Judges constituting the bench. Consequently the arguments were heard by the bench on the aforesaid point. Hon'ble R. K. Mahajan, J. by his order dated 19-12-96 dismissed all the writ petitions. The penultimate paragraph of the order reads as under-

(2.) Before proceeding to consider the merits of the questions involved for giving opinion, in the facts and circumstances narrated above, it has become necessary to consider whether the case has been properly referred for opinion of third Judge of this Court in terms of Ch. VIII, R. 3 of the Rules of the Court, 1952 here-in-after referred to as 'Rules'. . . R. 3 of Ch. 8 reads as under :-

(3.) The order referring the matter for opinion of third judge has not been signed by both the Hon'ble Judges. Though learned counsel for the parties have not addressed this Court on question as to whether reference to third Judge is in terms of R. 3 of Ch. VIII of the Rules, however, on noticing the aforesaid facts it became necessary for this Court to consider the propriety as to whether it will be proper and possible to give opinion in the facts and circumstances narrated above. A Full Bench of this Court in case of M/s. Shriram Industrial Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India reported in AIR 1996 Allahabad 135 had occasion to consider the provisions of Chapter VIII, R. 3 of the Rules in detail. In paragraph 87 of the judgment after noticing various authorities on the point, the Full Bench has held as under :-