TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 1244
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mr A.K. Patnaik (as His Lordship then was) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K. Agnihotri. An application was then made by respondent No. 5 on 14.03.2012 (I.A. No. 19 of 2012) seeking clarification /modification of order dated 09.08.2005. The writ petitioner filed his reply on 16.04.2012 to the application. This application was listed for orders before the Division Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Sharma as per roster on 02.05.2012. This Division Bench referring to Rule 40 of the Chhattisgarh High Court Rules (for short hereinafter referred to as "C.H. Rules") directed the Registry to place "this matter (I.A. No. 19 /2012)" before the appropriate Bench. 3. Accordingly and in compliance to this order, the Registry placed the matter before the Chief Justice on administrative side for orders for its listing. The Chief Justice by order dated 08.05.2012, directed listing of I.A. No 19/2012 before the Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S K.Agnihotri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.N. Chandrakar. The order further said that the writ petition be thereafter placed before the appropriate Division Bench dea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f provisions of the Rules governing the field, and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to dispose of this reference in the light of our reasoning mentioned infra. 10. At the outset, we consider it apposite to refer to Rule 2 (2 ), 3, 4 and 35 of C.H Rules which are relevant for this reference. These provisions read as under. Rule 2(2) Terms, words or expressions not defined herein shall have the meaning assigned to them in Acts or Rules from which they draw their origin. Rule 3. The General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), and the Chhattisgarh General Clauses Act, 1957 shall apply for the interpretation of these Rules. Rule 4 Unless otherwise expressly provided in these rules, the provisions contained in the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules and Orders shall apply. Rule 35 If a Bench of two Judges considers that the decision of the proceeding pending before them involves reconsideration of a decision of two or more Judges, they may refer the matter to the Chief Justice with a recommendation that it be placed before a Full Bench. The referring Judges may refer a stated question(s) or may recommend that the proceeding itself be heard and decided by the Bench t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de the reference to the Full Bench by taking recourse to Rule 35 of C.H. Rules. 15. Mere perusal of Rule 35 would go to show that it enables the Division Bench ( referring Judges ) to make a reference to the Full Bench to answer the "stated question/s" or to recommend for "deciding the entire matter itself", which is before the Division Bench. In other words, the reference can be made by the referring Judges to the Full Bench either for answering any specific stated question/s formulated by them arising in the case which is being heard or they can refer the entire matter itself. In the former case, after answering the stated question/s by the Full Bench, the matter has to be placed before the referring Bench to enable them to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the opinion of the Full Bench, whereas, in the later case, the matter stands decided finally by the orders of the Full Bench without there being any need to send the case back to the referring Judges. However, in both the eventualities, it is obligatory upon the referring Judges to state in their reference order as to what they eventually intend to refer to the Full bench to answer out of the t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the Full Bench for decision. Since, only reference was made to the Full Bench, the Full Bench should have answered the question referred to it and remitted the matter to the Division Bench for deciding the revision petition on merits. Consequently, we set-aside that part of the impugned order dated 31-1-2003 whereby the Full Bench has dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant herein. 20. Relying upon these decisions, the Full Bench of this High Court in a case reported in 2007 (1 ) BLJ 243 ( Alok Nigam vs Union of India and others ) held as under : High Court Rules and Orders (Chhattisgarh) - Sec 1 Chap. I R. 12-----question referred to the Full Bench specific - Full Bench has to answer that question only -- --cannot enter into merits beyond that. 2006 (2) BLJ 1 (SC) and (2006) 6 SCC 258 followed. 21. Similarly, the Allahabad High Court in a case AIR 2002 All 78 (Committee of Management Lal Bahadur Shastri Leghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya and another v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Gorakhpur Region and another) in explicit terms held as under : 5. The requirement of law, in the opinion of this Bench, is that the Bench hearing a case must formulate ....