Larger Bench Reference Must Rest on Reasoned Disagreement, Not a Prima Facie View at an Interlocutory Stage

A reference to a Larger Bench was held not maintainable where the referring Bench had only expressed a prima facie disagreement at the stay stage and had not given a reasoned conclusion on the merits. The Tribunal stressed judicial discipline, continuity and certainty, and held that departure from an earlier coordinate decision requires a reasoned order identifying the precise point of disagreement after hearing the parties on merits. A mere request for an opinion, without a properly formed difference of opinion, cannot justify Larger Bench reference. The reference was returned to the Registry and the matter restored for further action in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether a reference to a Larger Bench was maintainable when the referring Bench had expressed only a prima facie disagreement with earlier decisions and had not recorded a reasoned conclusion on the merits of the issues.

Analysis: The order of reference was found to have been made at the stage of stay proceedings and only on a prima facie view, without recording the basis for disagreement with the earlier coordinate decisions or a reasoned analysis of the facts and law. It was held that the Tribunal is expected to follow judicial discipline and maintain continuity, certainty and predictability, and that departure from an earlier view requires a reasoned order identifying the precise point of disagreement. A reference to a Larger Bench cannot be made merely to seek an opinion where no properly reasoned difference of opinion has been formed after hearing the parties on merits.

Conclusion: The reference was held to be not maintainable and was returned to the Registry.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to entertain the reference and restored the matter to the administrative channel for further action in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A reference to a Larger Bench requires a reasoned disagreement on an identical issue after consideration on merits, and cannot rest merely on a prima facie view expressed at an interlocutory stage.

---