Coordinate Bench discipline and fair price shop appeals: no automatic stay prevents alternate State arrangements without interim protection.

A coordinate Bench judgment binds a later coordinate Bench; if the later Bench finds the earlier view erroneous, the proper course is reference to a larger Bench, not unilateral overruling or withdrawal of consequential action. In relation to fair price shop authorisation, filing an appeal against suspension or cancellation does not create an automatic stay. Unless the appellate authority grants interim protection, the impugned order continues to operate, and the State may make alternate arrangements or fresh settlement to protect public interest and ensure uninterrupted distribution of essential commodities.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Division Bench could declare a coordinate Bench mandamus bad and direct withdrawal of a Government Order issued in compliance with it without referring the matter to a larger Bench; (ii) whether, upon suspension or cancellation of a fair price shop authorization and pendency of an appeal, the State could make alternate arrangements and fresh settlement in the absence of a stay.

Issue (i): Whether a Division Bench could declare a coordinate Bench mandamus bad and direct withdrawal of a Government Order issued in compliance with it without referring the matter to a larger Bench

Analysis: An earlier judgment of a coordinate Bench binds a subsequent Bench of the High Court. If the later Bench considers the earlier view erroneous or incomplete, the proper course is to refer the matter to a larger Bench. That requirement flows from judicial propriety, certainty, consistency, and discipline in decision-making. A coordinate Bench cannot overrule or nullify an earlier coordinate decision on its own.

Conclusion: The subsequent Division Bench was not justified in declaring the earlier mandamus bad or directing withdrawal of the consequential Government Order. The correct course was reference to a larger Bench, and the respondent's position was accepted on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether, upon suspension or cancellation of a fair price shop authorization and pendency of an appeal, the State could make alternate arrangements and fresh settlement in the absence of a stay

Analysis: The Control Order provides a statutory appeal and also a specific mechanism for interim stay. Mere filing or pendency of an appeal does not suspend the operation of the suspension or cancellation order. Unless the appellate authority grants a stay, the impugned order continues to operate. The fair price shop dealer functions only as an agent of the State, while the scheme is designed to secure equitable distribution of essential commodities to beneficiaries. Public interest and the needs of card holders prevail over the private interest of the dealer, and the State may make administrative arrangements accordingly.

Conclusion: The Court held that no automatic stay arises from the filing of an appeal, and the State is at liberty to make alternate arrangements or fresh settlement in the absence of a stay. The contrary earlier mandamus was overruled, and the respondent's stand was upheld on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The Full Bench settled the conflict by holding that coordinate Bench discipline required reference to a larger Bench, and that pending appeal without stay does not prevent the State from making suitable arrangements for public under the scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: A coordinate Bench cannot overrule another coordinate Bench, and suspension or cancellation of fair price shop authorization continues to operate until stayed or set aside, so the State may act in public interest to ensure uninterrupted distribution of essential commodities.

---