LexPRADIP CHANDRA PARIJA AND ORS. versus PRAMOD CHANDRA PATANAIK AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
PRADIP CHANDRA PARIJA AND ORS.
v.
PRAM OD CHANDRA PATANAIK AND ORS.
DECEMBER 4, 200 l
B
[S.P. BHARUCHA, CJ., SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI,
c
D
UMESH C. BANERJEE, SN. VARIAVA AND SH!VARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.]
Constitution of India, I950/Supreme Court Rules I960.
Articles I45(2) and (3)/0rder VII, Rules(!) and (2)-Supreme Court-
Constitution of Benches and reference of matters by smaller Bench to larger
Bench-A Two-Judge Bench not agreeing with the decision (Jf an earlier three-
judge Bench and r~ferring the matter to five-Judge Bench-Held, judicial
discipline and propriety deml<mls that a Bench of two Judges should.follow a
decision (Jf a Bench (Jf three Judges-But, if a Bench o,f two Judges concludes
that an earlier judgment o.fthree Judges is so ve1y incorrect that in no cin·un1-
stances can it be.followed, the proper course.for it to adopt is to r~fer the matter
be.fore it to a Bench o.f three Judges setting out the reasons why it could. not
agree with the earlierjudgment-If, then, the Bench o,fthree Judges also comes
to the conclusion that the earlier judgment of three Judge-Bench is incorrect,
E
r~ference to a Bench offive Judges is justified-The only situation when a two
Judge-Bench may re.fer a matrer directly to a Constitution Bench is when the
provisions of clause ( 3) of Article I 45 are attracted-In the instant case, the
Bench of two Judges has, in terms, doubted the correctness o,f decision o,f three-
Judge Bench-By a judicial order the matter before the Bench (!{two Judges
F
were ordered to be placed before a Bench o,ffive Judges-The Chi~f Justice, as
nutster o.fthe cause lists, l-vas required only to issue consequential adnzinistra-
tive direccions-Matters could only have been r~ferred to a Bench of three
Judges-Accordingly, they shall be placed b~fore a Bench o,f three Judges-
G
H
Judicial Discipline-Judicial Pmpriery.
Nityananda Kar and Anr. etc. v. Stale of Orissa and Anr., [1990] Suppl.
2 SCR 644, referred to.
Bharat Petroleum Cmporation Limited v, Mumbai Shramik Sangha and
Ors., [2001] 4 sec 448 and Sub-Committee Oil Judicial Accountability v.
Union(!{ India and On., [1992] 4 sec 97, relied on.
460
PRADIP CHANDRA PARIJA v. PRAMOD CHANDRA PATANAIK
461
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 791 of 1993.
A
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.4.91 of the Orissa Administrative
Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in T.A. No. 402 of 1986.
WITH
W.P. (C) No. 611 of 1992.
B
Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, Sudhir Chandra Parmanand Gaur,
Dipankar P. Gupta, Suchit Mohanty, Abhisth Kumar, Abhijit Sengupta, Vinoo
Bhagat, Achintya Dvivedi, Ms. Manish Singhvi, Ms. Kirti Mishra, Raj Kumar
C
Mehta, Ms. M. Sarada and Abhishek Awasti for the appearing partes.
The folloinwg Order of the Court was delivered :
These matters come to be placed before this Bench of five Judges by
D
reason of an order passed on 24th October, 1996 by a Bench of two learned
Judges. The two learned Judges stated in that order that they had been taken
through the judgment of this Court (delivered by a Bench of three learned
Judges) in Nityananda Kar and Anr. etc. v. State of Orissa and Anr.. [1991]
Suppl. 2 SCR 644 and that, "with utmost respect"., they did "not agree with
E
the reasoning and the conclusions reached therein". The learned Judges set out
four reasons why they disagreed with the said judgment. They then directed
that these matters "be placed before a larger bench of five Judges of this Court.
The Registry to place the papers before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appro-
priate orders in this Case.".
The question is whether two learned Judges of this Court can disagree
with a judgment of three learned Judges of this Court and whether, for that
reason, they ean refer the matter before them directly to a Bench of five Judges?
F
We may point out, at the outset, that in Bharat Petmleum Corporation
G
Limited v. Mumbai Shramik Sangha and Ors., [2001] 4 SCC 448, a Bench of
five Judges considered a some what similar question. Two learned Judges in
that case doubted the correctness of the scope attributed to a certain provision
in an earlier Constitution Bench Judgment and, accordingly, referred the matter
before them directly to a Constitution Bench. The Constitution Bench that then
H
462
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A
heard the mailer took the view that the decision of a Constitution Bench binds
a Bench of two learned Judges and that judicial discipline obliExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.