State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Bir Singh

Judgment

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 897 of 2002. From the Judgment and Order dated 30.01.2001 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition ~o. 32&2 of2001. WITH C.A. Nos. 1276, 1278, 1279, 6114, 8597 of200 l . C.A. Nos. 2409, 2~06, 4569, 5101,6108,6471 of2002 SLP (C) No.20982 of2002· C.A. No. 7994 of2004 SLP (C) Nos.l\291, 14085. 14127 of2004 C.A.No.812 of2005 SLP (C) No. 4l39.of2005 C. A. Nos.1273, 1274, 3647, 4646 of2007 SLP (C) No. 1630 I of 2007 C. A. Nos. 296, 1311-1312 of2008 SLP (C) Nos.31 07,4327, 4328,4329, 16276, 17224 of2008 83 84 [2017] I S.C.R. SLP (C) No.l112 of2009 SLP (C) ... CC No.7990 of2009 C.A. "\Jos. 3920, 5681 of20 I 0 C.A.Nos. 3119, 7757 of20 II C.A. ~o.ll31 of20 12 C.i\. Nos.4505-4506, 4507-4508 of20 13 SLP (C) l'\o.12679-12682 of20 14 C.A. No. 5.519 of20l2 AND WITH SI.,P (C) No.l857 of20 16. Ms.Pinky Anand, ASG, Dcvadatt Kamat, Purushindra Kaul'av, Nikhil Nayyar,AAGs., Sunil Gupta, Mrs. V.D. Makhija, Mrs. V. Mohana, Ms.

Indira Jaising, Subramonitun Pmsad, C.U. Singh, Dinesh Dwivcdi, Silambannan, Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Advs. Vivek Vishnoi, M. R. Shamshad, . Aditya Samadar, D.N. GobL1rdhan, Vimla Sexcna, Rajesh Ranjan, Karan Seth, Joel, Shashank Dcwa•'· Ms. Somya Rathorc~ B. Krishna Prasad, D. S. Mahra, Ms. Vimla Sinha, Ms. Gunwant Dam, Ms. Movita, Ms. Akhila J., M.K. Maroria, Bhtlrat Sangal, Ms. Vidushi Garg, Ms. Ajitha Sharma, Ms. Vernika Tomar, Samar Vijay Singh, SaJtiay Kr. Vi sen, Kamal Mohan Gupta. C. D. Singh, \.1s. Sylona Mohapatra, Vidit Arora, Rahul Rajput. Saurabh Ajay Gupta. M. Yogcsh Kanna, Ms. Nilhya, Ms. Jltmumt ika Wah i, Ms. PLtia Singh, Ms. Aagam Kaur, V. N. Ragh u path y, Joseph Aristotle, Rajesh lnamdar, Javedur Rahman, Parikhit P. Angdi, Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Mukesh Verma, K. L.Janjani, Mishra Samabh, Ms. Anuradha M ishra, Ankit Kr. La I, K uldip Singh, N. Sai Vi nod, Jagj it Singh Chhabra, Abhay Ncgdvi, Krishan Kumar, Joseph Aristotle S., Mrs. Priya Aristotle, Ms.

K. Priyadarshini, Ms. Anitha Shcnoy, Pradcep Misra, Ms. Madhu Sikri, R. Chandrachud, Senthil J agadeesan, Jawahar Raja, Chinmay Kanojia, Gautam Bhatia. Pukhrambnm Ramesh Kumar. Uday Manaktala, Prcctcsh Kapur, Ardhen<.l'umauli Kumar Prasad, Manish Shankar Srivastava, Krishnam Misra, Yasharth Kant, Ms. TarunaArdhendumauli Prasad, Namit Saxena, Nirmal Kumar Ambastha. Amritesh Raj, Panshul Chandra, Jaydip Pati, S. Ravi :Shankar, Yamunah N., Ms. Sneha Bhatnagar, Gunjan, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Mukesh Vermn. Pawan Kumar Shukla, Yash Pal Dhingra, Ms. Sangeeta Bhm1i, Krishanu Adhikary, Ms. Pr~rna Mehta, Dr. Krishan Singh Chauhan,Aseem Katoch,Ajit Kumar Ekka, Ravi Prakash, Chand STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. JAI DIR SINGH Kira11, Ms. Charu Lata Chaudhary. Ashok Kumar Sharma. Vikalp Mudgal, Kshitij Mudgal, Ms. Nidhi, Vidya DharGaur. Ms. Shnlu Sharma, Naresh Kumar, Dr. (Mrs.) Vi pin Gupta, Vishwajlt Singh, Dharat Sangal, S. K. Verma, S. N. Bhat, R. C. Kaushik, Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, E. C. Vidya Sagar, Ms.

Kusum Chaudhary, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Subhash Sharma, A. P. Mohanty, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Gautam Narayan, K. Rajeev, M. K. Garg, Ms. Sheela Goel, Abhay Nagavi. Krishan Kumar, Advs., with them for the appearing parties. The following Order of the Cou11 was del ivcred ORI>ER 'f. S. THAKUR, C.J.I. I. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. We have also been taken throHgh relevant passages of the decision of this Collrt in JJaugalor.e Water Supply & Sewarage Board e/c. 1-: A. Rqjuppa tmd Or.~. etc. ( 1978) 2 SCC 213 and the rete renee order passed by a Five-Judges Bench of this Court pursuant to which these matters have been placed bclorc us.

Having given our anxious consideration to the contentions ul'gcd at the bar and the serious and wide ranging imp I icat ions of the issue that fall for determination as also the tact that serious doubb have been cx.prcss~d in the rdercncc order about the l:Orrectness of the view taken in Bangalore Water Supp~v ~· ca.'ie (supra), \vc are of the opinion that these appeals need to be placed before a Bench comprising Nine-Judges to be constituted by the Chief Just ice. 2. We order accordingly. The papers be now placed before the Chief Justice for constituting an appropriate N ine-J udgcs Bench lo answer the questions raised in the reference order dated 5111 May. 2005 passed by the Five-Judges Bench in State of U.P " Jai Bir Singlt (2005} 5 sec 1. Divya Pandey Mattt:r rclcrcrrcd to larger bench. 85