2012 (9) TMI 1244 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Clarification/Modification of Interim Order
2. Applicability of Chhattisgarh High Court Rules
3. Reference to Larger Bench
4. Jurisdiction and Scope of Reference Jurisdiction

Summary:

1. Clarification/Modification of Interim Order:
In a pending writ petition, an interim order was passed on 09.08.2005. Respondent No. 5 filed an application on 14.03.2012 seeking clarification/modification of this order. The writ petitioner filed a reply on 16.04.2012. The Division Bench directed the Registry to place the matter before the appropriate Bench as per Rule 40 of the Chhattisgarh High Court Rules (C.H. Rules).

2. Applicability of Chhattisgarh High Court Rules:
The Full Bench considered Rule 2(2), 3, 4, and 35 of the C.H. Rules. Rule 2(2) and Rule 4 incorporate the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules (M.P. Rules) into the C.H. Rules by the principle of "legislation by incorporation." This ensures that any ambiguity in the C.H. Rules can be resolved by referring to the M.P. Rules.

3. Reference to Larger Bench:
The Division Bench recommended referring the matter to a larger Bench under Rule 35 of the C.H. Rules. Rule 35 allows a Division Bench to refer a matter to the Chief Justice for it to be placed before a Full Bench if it involves reconsideration of a decision by two or more Judges. The Chief Justice constituted the Full Bench on 26.07.2012.

4. Jurisdiction and Scope of Reference Jurisdiction:
The Full Bench emphasized that it could only answer specific stated questions referred to it and not decide the entire matter unless explicitly referred. The referring Judges did not formulate any specific questions under Rule 35, thus the Full Bench declined to answer the reference. The Full Bench cited several precedents, including Kesho Nath Khurana vs Union of India and Kerala State Science and Technology Museum vs Rambal Co., which establish that a larger Bench cannot adjudicate issues beyond the specific questions referred.

The Full Bench concluded that without specific questions formulated by the referring Judges, it could not proceed to answer the reference. The matter was thus declined for consideration, adhering to judicial discipline and the limits of advisory reference jurisdiction. The assistance rendered by the amicus curiae and other counsels was duly acknowledged.