Reference under Letters Patent requires a real judicial ; differing reasoning alone is not enough

Rule 31 of Chapter 4(F) of the High Court Rules and Orders read with Clause 26 of the Letters Patent applies only when judges of a Bench are actually divided on a point of decision. The connected orders showed no real difference: on maintainability, both judges held the writ petition maintainable as a public interest litigation, despite different reasoning; on final directions, both proceeded on cancellation of the earlier allotment and required a fresh, lawful and transparent process consistent with constitutional requirements. Mere variation in wording or emphasis did not create a referable divergence. The miscellaneous applications were therefore liable to be dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the two separate orders passed in the connected writ petition disclosed any real point of difference so as to require a reference under Rule 31 of Chapter 4(F) of the High Court Rules and Orders read with Clause 26 of the Letters Patent.

Analysis: Rule 31 and Clause 26 apply only where Judges constituting a Bench are actually divided on a point of decision. The earlier orders were examined on two aspects: maintainability of the writ petition as a public interest litigation and the nature of the final directions regarding allotment of the site. On maintainability, both Judges reached the same conclusion that the writ petition was maintainable, even though their reasoning differed. On the final directions, the directions were held to be substantially consistent, since both orders proceeded on cancellation of the earlier allotment and required a fresh, lawful and transparent process conforming to constitutional requirements. Mere variation in phraseology or emphasis did not create a legally cognizable divergence.

Conclusion: No point of difference existed that could attract a reference under Rule 31 read with Clause 26, and the miscellaneous applications were liable to be dismissed.

---