SHRI LUIZINHO JOAQUIM FALEIRO Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Writ Petitions under Article 226 of theConstitution of India have been referred to me in view ofthe split judgment by the two learned Judges of the GoaBench of this Court. While Justice A.S. Aguiar was ofthe view that these petitions ought to be allowed and Rulegranted therein be made absolute, another learned Judge,Justice P.V. Hardas, took a view that these WritPetitions ought to be dismissed and Rule granted thereinbe discharged. The Division Bench did not formulatepoints of difference and ordered that these petitions beplaced before the Honble Chief Justice for being referredto a third Judge. The learned Chief Justice was pleasedto refer these petitions for my opinion as a third Judgeunder Clause 36 of the Letters Patent. That is how thesepetitions were placed before me for hearing and opinion.On maintainability of reference to a third Judge:

(2.) AT the first instance, when these petitionswere placed on board for directions Shri S.G. Dessai,learned Senior Counsel, at the relevant time, appearingfor the petitioners in Writ Petition No.88/2002 has raisedan objection to this reference being violative of Section98(2) of Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C. for short).According to him, no point of law arose for considerationor at any rate, no point of law was framed or stated bythe learned Judges of the Division Bench which expresseddifference of opinions, inasmuch as the matter is referredto a third Judge without following the procedure ofSection 98(2) C.P.C.; the reference to a third Judge is anullity.

(3.) IN the above view of the matter, it is clearthat the reference does not suffer from any legal orfactual infirmity. All the questions and issues based onfacts and law involved in the petitions are open for theopinion of the third Judge. In this backdrop, bothpetitions were heard on merits to render my opinion on thequestions of fact and law both. OUTLINE CHRONOLOGY.