J.S.Khehar, J. - (1.) Civil Misc.No.5016 of 2005 has been filed on behalf of respondents No.2to 4, under rule 31 of Chapt er FCCCVCVC 4 (F) of the High Court Rules and Orders, read with, clause 26 of the Letters Patent. Rule 31 of Chapter 4(F) of the High Court Rul2212es and Orders is being extracted hereunder:- "31. Difence of Opinion.- In case of a difference of opinion between the Judges constituting a Bench hearing a petition, the points of difference shall be decided in accordance with the procedure laid down in clause 26 of the Letter Patent"
(2.) Clause 26 of the Letters Patent, which has been referred to in rule 31, extracted above, is also being reproduced hereunder:- "26. Single Judges ad Division Courts.- And We do hereby declare that any function which is hereby directed to be performed by the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, in the exercise of its original or appellate jurisdiction, may be performed by any Judge, or by any Division Court, thereof, appointed or constituted for such purpose in pursuance of section one hundred and eight of the Government of India Act, 1915; and if such Division Court is composed of two or more Judges and the Judges are divided in opinion as to the decision to be given on any point, such point shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the Judges, if there be a majority, but, if the Judges be equally divided, they shall state the point upon which they differ and the case shall then be heard upon that point by one or more of the other Judges and the point shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the Judges who have heard the case, including those who first heard it." (2) It is pertinent to mention that three separate orders were passed while deciding CWP No.6196 of 2004 on 14.2.2005. The first order was passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant on 14.2.2005 (the instant order will be referred to as the "Main Order, passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant", hereinafter). The next order was passed on the same day by Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr. Binod Kumar Roy (this order will be referred to as the "Order Passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice", hereinafter). In the Order Passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, reference was made to various observations and the conclusions recorded in the Main Order by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant. The third order was also passed on 14.2.2005. It was passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant after he had gone through the Order Passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. This order bears the title, "Post Judgment Script" (the third order shall, therefore, be referred to as the "Post Judgment Script of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, hereinafter). (3) In CM No.5016 of 2005, filed on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4, it is alleged that the Hon'ble Judges who decided CWP No.6196 of 2004 on 14.2.2004, expressed different views on a number of issues. It is, therefore, that the applicants have sought appropriate directions under rule 31 of Chapter 4 (F) of the High Court Rules and Orders, read with, clause 26 of the Letters Patent through the instant application. The nature of conflict between the Main Order passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, and the Order passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, is sought to be reflected through paragraphs 2 to 4 of the aforesaid application. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of the aforesaid application are being reproduced hereunder:- "2. That the Hon'ble Chief Justice has held that the writ petition has been filed in public interest and that "it cannot be said that he is not a public spirited person or that he lacks bonafide or that he is a busy body." The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Surya Kant has held "Yet it is more than difficult to hold him a public spirited person at whose instance a P.I.L. should be entertained." 3.Again the Hon'ble Chief Justice has held that:- "The decision of his Excellency the Governor of Punjab-cum- Administrator, Chandigarh Administration that the impugned allotment requires taking up of corrective steps suggests that it was made apparently arbitrarily, clandestinely, illegally and unconstitutionally. Obviously, it cannot be corrected in view of our findings by making its re-allotment with the allottee. It has to be auctioned in terms of the observations and findings referred to in the judgment that is to say by a transparent process. It is clarified that the allottee cannot take advantage of any type from the earlier settlement culminating into leasedeed (xerox copy Annexure R-6/3) executed by the President of India through the Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh in favour of the Chandigarh Law Institute Private Limited through its Director Ripjit Singh Narang as the allotment itself has been held to be unconstitutional."
(3.) On the other hand, the Hon'ble Mr.Justice Surya Kant has held:- "Since we have not been informed by the Chandigarh Administration of any further decision in the matter, and keeping in view our observations and the fact that the Executive Head of the U.T. Chandigarh has already taken a conscience, fair, reasonable and transparent decision to which reference has already been made by us, we dispose of this Writ Petition with the following directions:- "(i)The Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh will take the "necessary corrective steps" in the matter within a period of two months from today. (ii)In the light of the well settled law that allotment of a public property should conform to Article 14 of the Constitution, we hold that the corrective step to be taken by the learned Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh will have to be in consonance with the afore-said constitutional philosophy. (iii)The Chandigarh Administration is directed to take a policy decision while keeping in view the observations made in this judgment for allotment of available institutional sites to ensure that allotments are made objectively and in a transparent manner. (iv)The site in question can thereafter be allotted by inviting applications through a public notice and giving opportunity to all prospective allotted including Respondent No.6- Institute, if eligible. (v)Till the decision as taken as per directions (i) to (iv) above, and the site in question is allotted/disposed of in accordance with law, our ad-interim order restraining further constructions thereupon by Respondents No.6 to 9 shall continue to operate. (vi)The Chandigarh Administration will enforce Clause 18 of the "Allotment of Land to Educational Institutions (Schools) Etc. on Lease-hold Basis in Chandigarh Scheme, 1996." forthwith and allottees of the school sites shall be required to give an undertaking in writing to this effect within three months from today. In the event of their failure and/or reluctance to give the undertaking, as directive above, it will be open for the Chandigarh Administration to cancel the allotment of the school sites in accordance with law.";