High Court Requires Third Judge in Review Petitions Under Article 226

The Supreme Court held that in review proceedings arising from a High Court decision under Article 226, if judges differ, a reference to a third judge is required as per the High Court's Letters Patent. The Court directed the review petition to be referred to a third judge for resolution based on conflicting opinions. The third judge would decide the review petition, and the High Court was instructed to expedite proceedings within eight weeks. The appellant agreed to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs for laying pipelines. The decision on the review petition's merits would follow the third judge's opinion.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Procedural question regarding review proceedings and reference to a third judge.
2. Merits of the review petition and whether it should be allowed.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Procedural Question Regarding Review Proceedings and Reference to a Third Judge:
The core procedural question was whether, in review proceedings arising from a decision by a Division Bench of the High Court under Article 226, if the two judges differ on questions of fact or law, a reference to a third judge is required. The Supreme Court examined whether such a situation should be resolved by referring the matter to a third judge as per Clause 36 of the Letters Patent applicable to the High Court of Gujarat or by dismissing the petition under Order XLVII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The Supreme Court held that Clause 36 of the Letters Patent, which governs the procedure in case of a difference of opinion among judges, should prevail. This clause mandates that if judges are equally divided, the point of difference should be decided by a third judge. The Court noted that the review proceedings are not independent but stem from the original jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226. Consequently, the review petition retains the character of the original jurisdiction. Thus, the procedural requirements of Clause 36 of the Letters Patent are applicable, and the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 6, CPC, do not override this.

The Court also highlighted that Section 4(1) of the CPC states that nothing in the Code shall limit or affect any special or local law in force, which includes the Letters Patent. Therefore, the procedural rules of the Letters Patent take precedence over the CPC in such cases.

2. Merits of the Review Petition and Whether It Should Be Allowed:
The merits of the review petition were contingent upon the resolution of the procedural question. Since the Supreme Court determined that the matter should be referred to a third judge, the merits of the review petition were not addressed at this stage. The Court directed that the review petition be restored to the file of the High Court of Gujarat and referred to a third judge for resolution based on the conflicting opinions of the two judges who initially heard the review petition.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the third judge would consider all questions arising from the difference of opinion, whether factual or legal, and the review petition would be decided according to the majority opinion, including the third judge's decision.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals to the extent that the review petition must be referred to a third judge as per Clause 36 of the Letters Patent. The High Court was directed to expedite the review proceedings and resolve the matter within eight weeks. The Court also noted the appellant's agreement to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs without prejudice to its rights and contentions, to be used for laying proper pipelines in the industrial estate area. The decision on the merits of the review petition would follow the third judge's opinion.

---