TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 1076X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rk site. The Tahsildar reported the matter to the first respondent, District Collector. The said respondent by Ext. P1 order, ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) for release of the vehicle. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the Writ Petition is filed. According to the petitioner, his vehicle could be confiscated or he should be called upon to pay the value of the vehicle-in lieu of confiscation, only after a successful prosecution before the competent criminal court. In support of that submission, he mainly relies on the decision of this Court in Ahammed Kutty v. State of Kerala, (supra). When the respondents resisted the said prayer pointing out the decision of another learned Single Judge in Shoukathali v. Tahsildar, (supra), the Writ Petition, as mentioned earlier, was referred to the Division Bench. 2 . We heard the learned counsel, Sri. Babu S. Nair, and Sri. Jamsheed Hafiz, for the petitioners. We also heard the learned Advocate General, Sri. C. P. Sudhakara Prasad and the learned Government Pleader Sri. T. B. Hood, appearing for the State. The point that is vehemently canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Sand Act on a police report filed under S. 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. after investigation by police. S. 20 deals with penalty for the offence. Maximum period of imprisonment, apart from fine that can be imposed, is only two years. In Alavi's case we have considered the scope of S. 23 read with the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules (for short 'the Rules') and held that the Act and the Rules should be read together and harmoniously interpreted and Collector has got power to confiscate and sell the vehicle if the amount fixed by him is not paid to the River Management Fund within a reasonable time. Statutory rules framed in accordance with the Act also can be referred in interpreting the Statute so long as rules are not inconsistent with the Act. (See: Gujarat Pradesh Panchayat Parishad v. State of Gujarat ((2007) 7 SCC 718). For an effective understanding, we may extract S. 23 of the Act, Rr. 27 and 28 of the Rules: S. 23: Confiscation of vehicles:- Whoever transports sand without complying with the provisions of this Act shall be liable to be punished and the vehicle used for the transaction is liable for seizure by the police or R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. 6 . The District Collector is bound to consider the objection filed within seven days of seizure. 7. In Alavi's case, we have also held that as part of principles of natural justice. District Collector should give an opportunity of hearing also to the person who has filed the objection. 8 . The District Collector is bound to take a decision. If the vehicle is not found involved in illegal transport of the same, he is bound to return the same. 9. If it is found that the vehicle was transporting sand illegally, he has to fix an amount equivalent to the prize to be paid to the River Management Fund. 10. The District Collector is bound to return the seized vehicle if the amount fixed by the Collector is paid by the owner (sic. owner or the person) in possession of the vehicle as the case may be. 11. If the amount fixed is not paid within a reasonable time, he can sell the vehicle in auction. 12. The amount realised from the auction shall be credited to the River Management Fund. 4 . A plain reading of the Sand Act and Rules together will show that in the matter of seizure, no report need be filed to the Magistrate as special procedure is laid down when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find acceptance at the hands of the Division Bench does not mean that whenever the identical question is raised before the learned Judge, the matter has to be again referred to a Division Bench till the views of the single Judge are endorsed by a Division or Full Bench. Brought up in the highest traditions of judicial discipline, this court cannot at any time swerve from the path of judicial decorum and propriety. We shall content ourselves by a quotation from the decision of the Supreme Court in Asstt. Collector, C.E., Chandran Nagar v. Dunlop India Ltd. (AIR 1980 SC 330) thus:- We desire to add and as was said in Cassef and Co. Ltd. v. Broome, 1972 AC 1027, we hope it will never be necessary for us to say so again that, 'in the hierarchical system of Courts' which exists in our country, 'it is necessary for each lower tier', including the High Court, 'to accept loyally the decisions of the higher tiers'. It is inevitable in a hierarchical system of Courts that there are decisions of the Supreme Appellate tribunal which do not attract the unanimous approval of all members of the judiciary........ But the judicial system only works if someone is allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .J. observed: (AIR p. 1773, para 18) 18........It is hardly necessary to emphasis that considerations of judicial propriety and decorum require that if a learned Single Judge hearing a matter is inclined to take the view that the earlier decisions of the High Court, whether of a Division Bench or of a Single Judge, need to be reconsidered, he should not embark upon that enquiry sitting as a Single Judge, but should refer the matter to a Division Bench or, in a proper case, place the relevant papers before the Chief Justice to enable him to constitute a larger Bench to examine the question. That is the proper and traditional way to deal with such matters and it is founded on healthy principles of judicial decorum and propriety. It is to be regretted that the learned Single Judge departed from this traditional way in the present case and chose to examine the question himself. 80. In Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, (1989) 2 SCC 754, R. S. Pathk, C.J. while recognising need for constant development of law and jurisprudence emphasised the necessity of abiding by the earlier precedents in the following words: (SCC p. 766, para 9) 9. The doctrine of binding precedent has the me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts. 83. In Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik (2002) 1 SCC 1, the Constitution Bench noted that the two learned Judges denuded the correctness of an earlier Constitution Bench judgment in Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Mumbai Shramik Sangha (2001) 4 SCC 448, and reiterated the same despite the fact that the second Constitution Bench refused to reconsider the earlier verdict and observed: (Pradip Chandra Parija case, SCC pp. 3-4, paras 3 . 5-6) 3 . We may point out, at the outset, than in Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Mumbai Shramik Sangha a Bench of five Judges considered a somewhat 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 heard the matter took the view that the decision of a Constitution Bench binds a Bench of two learned Judges and that judicial discipline obliges them to follow it, regardless of their doubts about its correctness. At the most, the Bench of two learned Judges could have ordered that the matter be heard by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate or smaller Bench is to make a request for reference to the larger Bench. 85. In State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd., (2004) 11 SCC 26, the Court reiterated that if a coordinate Bench does not agree with the principles of law enunciated by another Bench, the matter has to be referred to a larger Bench. 86. In Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra the constitution Bench interpreted Article 141, referred to various earlier judgments including Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Mumbai Shramik Sangha and Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik and held that the law laid down in a decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or co-equal strength and it would be inappropriate if a Division Bench of two Judges starts overruling the decisions of Division Benches of three Judges. The Court further held that such a practice would be detrimental not only to the rule of discipline and the doctrine of binding precedents but it will also lead to in consistency in decisions on the point of law; consistency and certainty in the development of law and its contemporary status - both would be immedia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a larger Bench. However, a three-Judge Bench headed by Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J., refused to entertain the reference and observed that the two-Judge Bench is bound by the judgment of the larger Bench - Coir Board v. Indira Devai P.S. (2001) 1 SCC 224. 90 . We are distressed to note that despite several pronouncements on the subject, there is substantial increase in the number of cases involving violation of the basics of judicial discipline. The learned Single Judges and Benches of the High Courts refuse to follow and accept the verdict and law laid down by coordinate and even larger Benches by citing minor difference in the facts as the ground for doing so. Therefore, it has become necessary to reiterate that disrespect to the constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have great impact on the credibility of judicial institution and encourages chance litigation. It must be remembered that predictability and certainty is an important hallmark of judicial jurisprudence developed in this country in the last six decades and increase in the frequency of conflicting judgments of the superior judiciary will do incalculable harm to the system inasmuch as the courts at the grass roots wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions of the Division Bench, because of the loopholes in the enactment. In this context, we notice the submission of the learned Advocate General that the State is conscious of the loopholes in the law and are taking expeditious steps to remedy the same. But, till the law is amended, we are of the view that the Division Bench has taken, in the aforementioned two decisions, a plausible view on the power of the District Collector to order confiscation and lack of power on the Judicial Magistrates to entertain applications for interim custody. The said declaration of law should prevail until it is unsettled by a Full Bench of this Court or by the Apex Court or by legislative intervention. The learned single Judges are, therefore, bound to follow the decisions in Abdul Samad (supra) and Moosakoya (supra). We feel. It is not necessary to refer the matter to the Full Bench, as we agree with the legal position adumbrated in Abdul Samad (supra) and Moosakoya (supra). In view of the above discussion, we prefer to adopt the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Shoukath Ali v. Tahsildar (supra). The Writ Petitions are to be dealt with in the light of the directions in that case, which a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
