Most recent judgment to be considered

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

 WP(C) NO . 19452 OF 2019

Cochin International Airport Ltd. v. The State Information Commission & Anr. and other connected cases

https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/kerala-hc-holds-cochin-international-airport-ltd-to-be-public-authority-216252

32. During the course of the argument, it was urged that when there are different judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on a same point, the matter requires to be preferred to larger bench. I am afraid the said argument has no legs to stand in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment Gregory Patrao and Others v. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited and Others 2022 SCC online SC 830. In paragraph 32 the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the question of notice raised above held as under:

32. This Court thereafter had considered the decisions in the case of UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (supra) and Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. (supra) and has distinguished the

same and has observed and held that the decisions in the case of UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (supra) and Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. (supra) shall not be appliable with respect to the acquisition under the KIAD Act, 1966. Once, this Court in the subsequent decision in the case of Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (supra) dealt with and considered the earlier decisions in the case of UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (supra) and Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. (supra) and distinguished the same and observed and held with respect to the acquisition under the KIAD Act, 1966 that the allottee company can neither be said to be a “person interested” nor entitled for hearing before determination of compensation, the said ratio was binding upon the High Court. Thus, it was not open for the High Court to not follow the binding decision of this Court in the case of Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan  and conctd. cases (supra) by observing that in the subsequent decision in the case of Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (supra), the earlier decisions in the case of UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (supra) and Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. (supra) have not been considered. The High Court has not noted that as such while deciding the case of Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (supra), this Court did consider the earlier decisions in the case of UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (supra) and Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. (supra) and had clearly distinguished the same. Not following the binding precedents of this Court by the High Court is contrary to Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Being a subsequent decision, in which the earlier decisions were considered and distinguished by this Court, the subsequent decision of this Court was binding upon the High Court and not the earlier decisions, which were distinguished by this Court.