- (1.) The above four civil revisional applications have been assigned to this Bench. The Ld. Counsel appear for the respective parties in the four applications in the order as mentioned above. All the four application involve a common point of law. The said common point of law has been determined by an Hon'ble Special Bench of this Court upon an analogous hearing of the above four applications. After determination of the said point of law the matters have now been assigned before this Bench for hearing on their individual merits. At the very outset Sri Roychowdhury, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for one of the petitioners raises the question of jurisdiction of this Court to hear the four applications on merits upon determination of the point of law by the Hon'ble Special Bench . The point on jurisdiction raised by Sri Roychowdhury is resisted by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the other parties and accordingly this Court has been urged to settle the point on jurisdiction first prior to proceeding further, if justified, on the merits of each of the individual cases.
(2.) Accordingly, all the parties except the Howrah Municipal Corporation, which has not been represented before this Court in spite of the repeated dates when the matters appeared on 24th February 2014, 10th March 2014, 19th March 2014, 28th March 2014 and finally 2nd April 2014. No accommodation on all the aforementioned dates have been sought for on behalf of the Howrah Municipal Corporation and therefore, this Court is now called upon, after hearing the extensive submissions made by the other appearing parties, to pronounce its final orders on the point of jurisdiction.
(3.) Sri Roychowdhury submits as follows:-- a) That Chapter VII of the Appellate Side Rules, High Court, Calcutta provides for reference of matters to a larger bench. There is a difference in procedure in case of a reference from an original decree and in reference of Civil Revisional Applications. b) Sri Roychowdhury has submitted that in terms of chapter VII rule 3 the following is provided:-- "If the question arises in an Appeal from an Original Decree, the questions of law shall alone be referred, and the Full Bench shall return the Case with an expression of its opinion upon the points of law for final adjudication by the Division Bench which referred it and in case of necessity in consequence of the absence of any or either of the referring judges for the ultimate decision of another Division Bench. c) Taking this Court to Ch. VII Rule 4 Sri Roychowdhury submits that it provides as follows: "If the question arise in any matter coming before a Division Bench (taking up application for writs in the nature of labour companies referred to in Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India and application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) in the exercise of its Civil Revisional jurisdiction, the point or points shall be stated as provided in Rule 2, and the matter shall be referred for the final decision of a Full Bench." It will be useful for this Court to place the provisions of Rule 2 of Ch. VII of the Appellate Side Rules. Rule 2 provides as follows:--"If the question arises in an Appeal from an Appellate Decree or in an Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent or in a Reference or in any case heard by a bench of two or more Judges, not being a Full Bench the Court referring the case shall state the point or points upon which they differ from the decision of a former Division Bench and shall refer the Appeal, the Reference or the Case for the final decision of a Full Bench." d) Sri Roychowdhury submits that having regard to the language of Rule 4 of Ch. VII this Court cannot have determination to hear the matters on merits. According to him, it is only the Full Bench which is competent to decide the cases both on the point of law and on the application of law to the merits of the case.;