Kuldip Singh, J. - (1.) This interlocutory application has been filed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through its Registrar in the Special Leave Petition arising from the judgment and order dated September 23, 1994 of High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) in U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad v. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No. 35951 of 1994.). The special leave petition was disposed of by this Court on December 2, 1994 with the following order."In view of the Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court this special leave petition has become infructuous. The special leave petition is disposed of as such."
(2.) The Judgment in Chini Mill's case (supra) is by the Bench consisting of B.M. Lall and S.R. Singh, JJ. The question of law decided by the Bench in Chini Mill's case (supra) was later on reconsidered by a Full Bench of the High Court which came to the conclusion that the judgment of the Division Bench in Chini Mill's case (supra) was contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Nasiruddin v. STA Tribunal, AIR 1976 SC 331, and as such was not correctly decided. It was in this background - Chini Mill's case (supra) having been overruled by the Full Bench of the same Court - that this Court did not go into the merits of the special leave petition and disposed of the same as having become infructuous.
(3.) The jurisprudence governing Court-functioning in this country makes a judgment, delivered by a Judge or a Bench comprising of more than one Judges, the Judgment of the Court and not of the person holding the judicial office. The judgment holds good till it is set aside or its correctness is doubted by the higher Court. Once the correctness of a judgment is doubted by the higher Court the judgment no longer remains the law of the land and is treated as non est. Judicial propriety demands that the Judge/Judges whose judgment has been rendered non est by the higher Court should not bring their personal ego into the matter and should bow before the law laid down by the higher Court. The facts and circumstances highlighted in this application give the impression that the Registry of the High Court is in a state of helplessness and there is a functional-crisis on the issue of interpretation of Clause 14 of the High Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948. The Registry is being asked to comply with the "General Directions" given by the Bench in Chini Mill's case (supra) despite the fact that the said case has been overruled by the Full Bench of the same Court. We, therefore, grant permission to the High Court to file special leave petition in this Court against the judgment of the Division Bench in Chini Mill's case (supra). We treat this interlocutory applications as special leave petition and we grant special leave in the matter.;