STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. PRASHRAM JAGANNATH AUTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LAW, despite its source, is essentially mutable and has to change with the need of the society to ensure that the legislative intent is achieved. It may not be essential to construe statutory provisions strictly or apply the existing judicial dictums so strictly and mechanically that it overreaches the concept of stare decisis. The law of precedents is an accepted precept of administration of justice. Judicial discipline requires precedents to be followed but without transgressing its own limitations. Precedents are described as "authorities to follow in determination in Courts of justice. Precedents have always been greatly regarded by the Sages of the Law. The precedents of the Courts are said to be the laws of the Courts and the Courts will not reverse a judgment contrary to many precedents" (Law Lexicon - 1997 edition ). To the rule of precedents there are exceptions founding on the doctrine of ratio decidendi, sub-silentio and stare decisis. For a precedent to be binding, it cannot be without judicial discussion on arguments. An extra judicial opinion given out of Court or without context is not a good precedent. To be a precedent, it has to be an adjudged case or decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction, considered as furnishing an example or authority for an identical or similar case afterward arising or a similar question of law. It is the ratio understood in its correct perspective that is made applicable to a subsequent case on the strength of a binding precedent. The ratio is variously defined to be the relation between two magnitudes of the same kind in terms of quality and quantity. Ratio decidendi is the reason for deciding as reasoning is the soul of decision making process. It is formulation of an opinion by the Judge which is necessary in the facts of the case for determination of the controversy. In the case of C. D. Kamdar vs. State of orissa, (1985) Tax L. R. 2497, expressing its views in relation to the binding precedents, the Court held as under :-

(2.) WE have already indicated that the law in its due course changes its form and application but existence of reasoning with the changing law is a mandatory requirement of judicial process. Ratio est legis anima, miitata legis ratione, mutatur et lex is a maxim for the proposition that law must state reasons and reasons should have a reasonable nexus to the facts of the case. It is said that reason and authority are the two brightest lights of the world and thus it follows that providing of correct reasoning for every decision is the basic feature of rule of law.

(3.) IN line with the requirements of judicial discipline in following the precedents, a Bench of this Court, while dealing with the question of fixation of fair market value of the land which had been acquired in consonance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as "the act", expressed certain reservations in applying the principle enunciated by a division Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Maharashtra and ors. vs. Vithal Rodbaji Shinde, 1993 LAC 233. The single Judge of this Court expressed certain reservations in following the principle stated by a Division Bench of the court in the case of Vithal Rodbaji Shinde (supra) as, according to the Judge, the principle was in contradiction to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of hookiyar Singh and ors. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Moradabad and anr. , (1996) 3 SCC 766 and chose to refer the matter to a Larger Bench. The order of reference dated 30th September, 2003 reads as under :