DEVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following question has been referred for the opinion of this Bench:-" Whether this Court which has passed the judgment which is challenged in the L. P. A. by the affected respondents is competent to entertain and hear the stay application against its own orders ?"

(2.) A writ petition was decided by my brother Thakur as a single Judge. He allowed the petition and directed the State and the Chief Electoral Officer to treat the petitioners as regular employees of the Election Department and not to revert them. Against his order a Letters Patent Appeal has been filed in this Court, and in that appeal the present application has been made for staying the operation of the order allowing the writ petition. The Letters Patent Appeal came on for admission before myself and D.B. Lal. J. The latter declared that he would not like to be a member of the Bench hearing the appeal, and accordingly an order was made that the case be listed before a Bench of which he was not a member. This Court, as presently constituted consists of the Chief Justice and two Judges only and it is not possible in the circumstances that the appeal be listed before a differently constituted Bench. In the circumstances, the appellants prayed that the stay application be listed before my brother Thakur as the single Judge who had disposed of the writ petition. Doubting whether he had jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the stay application my learned brother has referred the point to a larger Bench. And that is how this matter is before us.

(3.) I think it to be beyond dispute that the High Court has inherent jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders in the matter of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Principles on which it will exercise its inherent powers are well settled. They cannot be exercised where it would be inconsistent with or opposed to provisions of the statutory law of procedure or relate to matters on which such statutory law can be said to be exhaustive They may be exercised wherever justice equity and good conscience require a Court to act. The Courts in India are not only Courts of Law but also Courts of Equity. Every Court administers justice in accordance with law. but wherever the law is silent a Court will act ex-debito institute in consummation of the purpose for which it exists. Some of the cases in which it has been recognised that the Court has inherent power are set out in Hukum Chand v. Kamalanand. (1906) ILR 33 Cal 927 and further instances are mentioned in Nand Kishore v. Ram Golam. (1913) ILR 40 Cal 955.