Harish Tandon, J. - (1.) The Court: At the very outset this Court must recapitulate the observations recorded by the Supreme Court in case of Rashmi Metaliks Limited & Anr. -Vs- Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority & Ors., 2013 10 SCC 95 deprecating the multiple citations of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court as well as by the various High Courts reiterating the same principles of law with the following observations:- "7. This Court, and even more so the High Court as well as the subordinate courts have to face lengthy arguments in each case because of the practice of citing innumerable decisions on a particular point of law. The correct approach is to predicate arguments on the decision which holds the field, which in the present case is Tata Cellular v. Union of India, 1994 6 SCC 651 rendered by a three-Judge Bench. The rule of precedence, which is an integral part of our jurisprudence, mandates that this exposition of law must be followed and applied even by coordinate or co-equal Benches and certainly by all smaller Benches and subordinate courts. We hasten to clarify that if a coordinate Bench considers the ratio decidendi of the previous Bench to be of doubtful efficacy, it must comply with the discipline of requesting the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench. Furthermore, there are some instances of decisions even of a Single Judge, which having withstood the onslaughts of time have metamorphosed into high authority demanding reverence and adherence because of its vintage and following in contradistinction of the strength of the Bench. This is a significant characteristic of the doctrine of stare decisis. Tata Cellular, 1994 6 SCC 651 has been so ubiquitously followed, over decades, in almost every case concerning government tenders and contracts that it has attained heights which dissuade digression by even a larger Bench. The law of precedence and of stare decisis is predicated on the wisdom and salubrity of providing a firmly founded law, without which uncertainty and ambiguity would cause consternation in society. It garners legal predictability, which simply stated, is an essential. Our research has revealed the existence of only one other three-Judge Bench decision which has dealt with this aspect of the law, namely, Siemens Public Communication Networks (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2008 16 SCC 215 , which is in actuality an anthology of all previous decisions including Tata Cellular, 1994 6 SCC 651 . The sheer plethora of precedents makes it essential that this Court should abjure from discussing each and every decision which has dealt with a similar question of law. Failure to follow this discipline and regimen inexorably leads to prolixity in judgments which invariably is a consequence of lengthy arguments.
(2.) Plethora of judgments are cited for same proposition of law inviting this Court to deal with each of them to make the judgment lengthy and voluminous.
(3.) At the time of moving the motion, this Court observed that the Petitioner should exhaust the statutory remedy provided under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 as all the points taken in the instant Writ Petition are amenable to be taken before the said forum, which is also otherwise competent to decide the same on merit.;