9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayats-8, dated 12-5-1995. Two residents of the village filed W.P.No.10987/95, questioning the bifurcation. The writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court, through order dated 22-11-1995. While the proceedings referred to in the order related to bifurcation of Pulluru Gram Panchayat, the order read as though it related to bifurcation of Seetharampuram Gram Panchayat into Seetharampuram and Marribandam. The petitioners in that writ petition appear to have been satisfied by getting the election to the Gram Panchayat stayed. They did not evince any interest either to get the order corrected or to take further steps. Thereafter, another person by name Vajrala Kumar Reddy filed W.P.No.16896 of 2000, complaining that failure on the part of the respondents in passing the final order with regard to bifurcation and non-compliance with the directions contained in W.P.No.10987/95 is illegal and arbitrary. In that writ petition, the respondents pleaded that their inaction in the matter was only on account of the mentioning of the name of a different village vis-`-vis the notification dated 12-5-1995. This Court referred to these contentions and ultimately, through or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 87/95 to place the relevant and correct facts before this Court that gave rise to all these complications. The short order passed therein reads as under: This writ petition is filed questioning the order of the District Collector, Krishna, dated 12-5-1995 bifurcating Seetharampuram Panchayat into Seetharampuram and Marribandam as separate Gram Panchyayats. The learned Government Pleader stated that the rules have been promulgated governing the field of the bifurcation. These rules were not in force at the time when the Collector passed the impugned order. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to examine the issue afresh by applying the rules and provisions of the Act and pass appropriate orders by giving ample opportunity to the Gram Panchayat concerned. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. Firstly, when the writ petition was disposed of, this Court proceeded on the footing that what was involved was bifurcation of Seetharampuram, whereas the impugned notification related to Pulluru village. Secondly, on a representation made by the Government Pleader that when the impugned order therein i.e., notification dated 12-5-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gnorance of a statute or a rule having the force of statute, i.e., delegated legislation. This rule was laid down for the House of Lords by Lord Halsbury in the leading case (London Street Tramways v. L.C.C. (1898) A.C.375) and for the Court of Appeal it was given as the leading example of a decision per incuriam which would not be binding on the Court {Young vs. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd (194) K.B. at 729 (C.A.)}. The rule apparently applies even though the earlier Court knew of the statute in question, if it did not refer to, and had not present to its mind, the precise terms of the statute. Similarly, a Court may know of the existence of a statute and yet not appreciate its relevance to the matter in hand; such a mistake is again such incuria as to vitiate the decision. Even a lower Court can impugn a precedent on such grounds. (Salmond on Jurisprudence 12th Edition Pages 151 and 152) C.K.Allen, in Law in the Making (page 246) analyses the concept of per incuriam as under: Incuria means literally 'carelessness', which apparently is considered less uncomplimentary than ignorantia; but in practice per incuriam appears to mean per ignorantiam. It would almost seem t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after a thorough diagnosis and under perfect supervision, such toxic and poisonous drugs, may cure the disease and save life; whereas any misadventure may cost a life, which was otherwise secure. The care and caution to be taken in applying these concepts is by no means inferior in degree. The fact that a second view is possible as regards a decision rendered earlier does, by no means, provide a justification to ignore it, by branding the same as per incuriam. It should be evident from an analysis of the judgment in question, that a crucial provision of statute or delegated legislation, having an important bearing on the subject matter, was not brought to its notice at all, and that the Court did not take the same into account while rendering its decision. No doubt even the petitioner, obviously knowing his limitations, did not complain about the inconsistency as to facts and incongruity in presentation before the Court in W.P.No.10987/95 and the outcome thereof. However, if the Court comes to know that an order passed by it was as a result of unnoticing certain vital provision of law, and if it is realised that, but for such an omission, the result would not have ensued, the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
