PANKAJ KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. OMENDRA KUMAR CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved herein is simple, but the matter assumes a complex character in view of a seemingly well-settled order of a Division Bench of this court being found to have been rendered per incuriam by a subsequent Division Bench and the opinion of such subsequent Division Bench not being in consonance with a legal provision that it failed to notice. At any rate, the subsequent Division Bench's view has been rendered bad law by a recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court.

(2.) The opinion rendered by the more recent Division Bench of this court is inconsistent with the views expressed on such aspect by several other High Courts, including Delhi and Gujarat, in respect of a Central statute. However, even such position elsewhere in the country may not have prompted this Division Bench to dislodge the point of law decided by the more recent of the two previous Division Bench judgments of this court and, had it not been for a Supreme Court judgment delivered in March of this year, the matter may have been referred to a larger bench despite the immediate previous Division Bench view on such aspect appearing, on the face of it, to be erroneous and unsustainable.

(3.) To linger a further while on the prelude, it must never be lost sight of that in our hierarchical system of the judiciary governed by the rule of law, judicial discipline is of greater importance than jurisprudential correctness. Certainty and finality are the hallmarks of a mature judicial system and, just as the principle of res judicata has more to do with finality and conclusivity than correctness, the doctrine of stare decisis commands that a settled position of law should scarcely be disturbed.