Union Of India And ORS v. Bachittar Singh









 













 



 !!"#
$% &

'

#( )#

"
$ *+&
,--








 






!

"

 

 +

 .'
+

/
 /
/0'1


 /
 .'
+/ /
' 
  #

$
% 
& 
&'

()
*



'

* 




 /
/-231
,4
25
6,
$ &
+#%7"8#'

#

 

 

  ,

---
 ,

!

 )

.

)

+ .


+

'


' 

 )
,



/,
 +

  

 ,

---
 ,

!



 
*%
 
 

'

#( )#

"
$ *+& *









!

 




0-011012
  
/,




!
(!


*3#4-56 10-7)
.

/,




!
(!


.

.





8 

,
 

!

"-)59)252 )
.

. 






 '
0-0-10-9

200710-9

:


'

"24)500 
. 

/

 
!.



;
9<


'


1
:




+  
8 )
 '

,)
/
5
9:
-
26
;6 5<
+621
$

%!&

/
""


/ 8

42

5
9:
*
=

-
26
;/
4->
/421
$

%)&
%
/
)(






>


*

-2
?
-
26
;6 /
5
=
-
261

8
$"&
'

!%% 
. 
 
/,


!

.





/




+!


 
 ',
 '
19---762

20--10--

. 


!


 '

 
?

,
@ 

 
)



)




/


.

*"#>)







+ 
 '
10-110--

-7-110-6



 
/ 
:

 
' '

A

*


# ,
*''
"



/ 
. 

!+ 


 , 

 ,
/ 

"7200 
.


# ,

"5100 

.





. 



+ 
 ,
 '
0-0-10-9
B



 
!


090710-6)

 
/ 


. 
!


/   
2


,)

-A0710-6
 

"A)

'

. 
 


. 



 ',


 
', 


,



 
/ 

 


+ 
 ,


. )



)

'! 
 

'


/
  

1A0710-6
 

#1

 
'
/

)
.


/


8 



:

'
. 


8   
+
 

#2

02-010-6


5
:



' + 
!

/ 

A

*


# ,
*''
)



)

C

  

!

  


)

. 














'






.





 
. 
 

:

  
  ,

/



+ 
.


,
 

 

'






,

  

5<
+62
$6@&

/





.


 !

*

! ,
+



.
/
8 


 /

,



 .

!

',

D

!



:





4->
/42
$6@&
. 

 !




!







C!
. 
!+ 
)



)

 
',



/

= 


4
* 




=!'

 
*


2-42
-
26
;6
,2
/42
-
21
$

%&
%"
/
!87





,
 
'
 

 / 
/



9






.

+

/ 

.
8 
/


=!'




 
* 

+ 


.

=!'


5<
+62
$6@&
. 
 

/ 8
 '




,)

+ .


  
/,
>


*

-
/366
?
'?-
;6 ?
-
261

%87%
$ *&
%"1
 
 



.

+ .

.

.

/ / 

"

+ 
/

+ 






$

"22. A perusal of the judgments in the municipal corporation of the city of Ahmedabad and Himalaya Tiles cases would plainly indicate that there is a direct conflict on the point therein. Both the judgments have been rendered by a Bench consisting of two Hon'ble Judges and cannot possibly be reconciled. This situation at once brings to the fore the somewhat intricate question which is now not of infrequent occurrence namely, - 'when there is a direct conflict between two decisions of the Supreme Court rendered by co-equal Benches, which of them should be followed by the High Courts and the Courts below'.

23. Now the contention that the latest judgment of a coordinate Bench is to be mechanically followed and must have pre-eminence irrespective of any other consideration does not commend itself to me. When judgments of the Superior Court are of co-equal Benches and therefore of matching authority then their weight inevitably must be considered by the rationale and the logic thereof and not by the mere fortuitous circumstances of the time and date on which they were rendered. It is manifest that when two directly conflicting

judgments of the Superior Court and of equal authority are extent then both of them cannot be binding on the Courts below. Inevitably a choice, though a difficult one, has to be made in such a situation. On principle it appears to me that the High Court must follow the judgment which appears to it to lay down the law more elaborately and accurately. The mere incidence of time whether the judgments of coequal Benches of the Superior Court are earlier or later is a consideration which appears to me as hardly relevant."
9
,)
.

/ /

=!'

5<
+62
$6@&



!
!+ 
/,

 
 

 '
,
 ' ,



 

 ' 

'


A

' 

' 
6


!
 
 !
*%-651@#1012

   
+

 
 








$ /
/0'&






 /



$' 
 &

Naveen










 

 C!

 
$

"

 /
$