Writ appeals challenging identical contentions rejected due to binding Division Bench precedent and stare decisis, appeals dismissed

Writ appeals asserting identical contentions were dismissed because the Single Judge applied an existing Division Bench precedent, invoking stare decisis to reject the challenges; the reliance on prior Division Bench reasoning formed the legal basis for refusal to interfere, and the appeals were therefore dismissed. The operative legal point is the application of binding precedent where identical issues have been previously negatived, resulting in no departure from established Division Bench law and consequent denial of relief on the same grounds.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ appeals deserve interference with the impugned judgment which followed the Division Bench decision in Sunil Kumar K.V. (W.A. No.938 of 2024) on identical contentions.

Analysis: The impugned judgment applied the earlier Division Bench decision in Sunil Kumar K.V. where identical contentions were considered and negatived. The present appeals raise the same substantive question already decided by that Division Bench authority; no additional legal or factual basis for departing from that decision is shown.

Conclusion: Appeals dismissed; decision is against the appellant and in favour of the Revenue.

---