- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Mere Issuance of Notice Does Not...
Mere Issuance of Notice Does Not Attract Doctrine of 'Stare Decisis': MP High Court
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
30 Sep 2022 5:22 AM GMT
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reiterated that mere issuance of notice on a plea does not create a 'binding precedent' on courts, as it does not lay down any proposition of law to be followed in future.Justice Vivek Agarwal explained that 'Precedent' refers to a decision that is considered as an "authority" for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts, or...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reiterated that mere issuance of notice on a plea does not create a 'binding precedent' on courts, as it does not lay down any proposition of law to be followed in future.
Justice Vivek Agarwal explained that 'Precedent' refers to a decision that is considered as an "authority" for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts, or similar issues.
'Precedent', is incorporated into the doctrine of 'stare decisis', and requires courts to apply the law in the same manner to cases with the same facts...Thus, I am not in a position to agree that merely issuance of a notice by a Coordinate Bench, under which provision of law, can be considered to be a binding precedent as it does not lay down any proposition of law to be followed in future.
The Petitioner herein is an Electrical Contractor seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to release his for the work carried out under 'Sobhagya Yojna Scheme'.
The petitioner informed the court that under similar circumstances, a coordinate bench of this court had already issued notice. He said that when in four cases interim relief has been granted, necessarily he would also be entitled to the same. He further submitted that to deny him the interim relief only because of the fact that the matter requires to be heard finally may not be appropriate.
The High Court however observed that the question of 'judicial discipline' would have arisen when a decision was rendered by a forum of superior or concurrent jurisdiction while adjudicating the rights of parties in a similar matter. However, as of now, there was no declaration of law in the "discretion" exercised by the Coordinate Bench to issue notice.
It added that the case involved disputed questions of facts and the agreement was not brought on record by the Petitioner. It relied on Noble Resources Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa & Anr. wherein it was held that petition involving disputed questions of fact would not ordinarily lie before the High Court.
In this view, the court said that the Petitioner is not even entitled to admission of this petition as issuance of notice is not a binding precedent applicable to invoke doctrine of 'stare decisis'.
Case Title: M/S Keshav Kanshkar A Class Electrical Contractor v. The Principal Secretary Department Of Energy Mantralaya Vallabh Bhawan Bhopal & Ors.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 222
