- (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, had come up in the first instance, before a learned single Judge, K.C. Agarwal, J. The order of reference made by his Lordship reads thus :- "The question raised by the learned counsel for the parties is, in my opinion, of general importance and is likely to arise in a number of other petitions, and as my judgment could be a subject matter of appeal to a Division Bench, it appears appropriate to refer this case to a larger Bench for deciding the following questions : 1. Whether the irrebuttable presumption incorporated in Explanations (ii) and (iv) of Section 21 is of substantive law or procedure expressed in presumptive form 2. Whether Section 14(2) of U.P. Act No. 28 of 1976 deleting Explanations (ii) and (iv) is retrospective in operation 3. Whether the law, as amended by U.P. Act No. 28 of 1976, is to be given effect to in the present writ proceedings -
(2.) Under clause (b) of the proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter V of the Rules of this High Court, a Judge may, if he thinks fit, refer a case which may be heard by a Judges sitting alone or any question of law arising therein for decision to a larger Bench.
(3.) A question arises whether the learned Single Judge has referred to the Division Bench the whole case or only certain questions of law. His lordship has formulated three questions. But he has also stated that it appeared appropriate to refer the case to a larger Bench for deciding those questions, Reading the order of reference as a whole, we are inclined to construe it as referring the entire case to a Division Bench.;