Binding appellate judgment controls recovery of budgetary support after change in ownership, making the demand unsustainable.

Recovery of budgetary support granted under a scheme for change in ownership could not be sustained where a later Division Bench ruling had already decided the same entitlement issue. The High Court treated that appellate judgment as binding and held that a proposed special leave petition did not affect its present force. The impugned recovery order was therefore set aside, and relief was granted in line with the binding appellate ruling, while other questions were left open.

---

---

Issues: Whether the recovery of budgetary support granted to the unit on the ground of change in ownership could be sustained when a Division Bench decision covering the same issue had set aside the earlier contrary view.

Analysis: The challenge to the recovery order was examined in the light of the later Division Bench judgment, which had already dealt with the identical controversy concerning entitlement under the Budgetary Support Scheme after change of ownership. Once that decision was in force, it bound the Court. The respondents' submission that a proposed special leave petition might be filed did not dilute the binding effect of the existing appellate judgment.

Conclusion: The recovery demand was not sustained and the writ petition was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned recovery order stood set aside and the petitioner remained entitled to relief in accordance with the binding appellate ruling, with other questions left open.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsisting appellate judgment on an identical issue is binding on the High Court and must be followed unless and until it is stayed or reversed.

---