1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 14 OF 2009. (1) Smt. Sitabai Shantaram Talawnekar, major of age; housewife, (2) Miss Sunita S. Talawnekar; (3) Miss. Kalpana S. Talawnekar; (4) Shri Vidhyadhar S. Talawnekar; (5) Miss. Anita S.Talawnekar, All residing at Tirthabag, Mayem, Bicholim-Goa. .. Appellants Versus (1) Custodian of Evacuee Property, with office near the Custom House, Panaji-Goa-403 001. (2) Vassudev A. Talaunkar, major of age, married, agriculturist, residing at Tirthabag, Mayem, Bicholim-Goa. .. Respondents. Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar with Mr. D. J. Pangam, Advocates for the appellants. Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Government Advocate for the respondent No.1. Mrs. A. Agni, Advocate for the respondent No.2. CORAM :- S. B. DESHMUKH & U. D. SALVI, JJ. DATE OF RESERVING 2 THE JUDGMENT : 1 st September, 2009 . DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 9 th September, 2009 . JUDGMENT : (PER U. D. SALVI, J.) 1. In this Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the order of dismissal of the writ petition No.142/2009 by the Single Judge of this Bench, an exception is taken to its maintainability in view of the judgment of the Division Bench in L.P.A. No.15/2000 delivered on 22.06.2009. The learned Advocate Agni for the contesting respondent No.2 Vassudev Talaunekar raised such preliminary objection at the stage of admission of this appeal on the ground that this Division Bench after considering all the relevant provisions of law had clearly reached the conclusion that the Letters Patent Appeals are not maintainable before this Bench of High Court at Bombay at Panaji; and now this bench cannot sit as an Appellate Court over the orders passed earlier regarding non-maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeals in order to take a view contrary thereof. She pointed out from the judgment in L.P.A. No.15/2000 the elaborate discussion on the relevant provisions of law entered into by this bench while reaching its conclusions regarding the non- maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeals. She further 3 pointed out from the judgment in L.P.A. No.10/2009 passed by the same Division Bench on 29.06.2009 as to how the said Division Bench differed from earlier contrary view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in judgment reported at 1984(2) BOM. C.R. 530 (Cadar Construction Versus Tara Tiles). To further her submissions, she relied on the judgment reported in AIR 1975 Bombay 120 Panujumal Hassomal Advani Versus Harpal Sing Sawhney and others. 2. The learned Advocate Mulgaonkar for the appellants submitted that the jurisdiction of High Court of Bombay including the jurisdiction to entertain Letters Patent Appeals, without any dilution, was extended to Goa, Daman and Diu by virtue of Section 3 of the High Court at Bombay (extension of jurisdiction to Goa, Daman and Diu) Act 1981 (hereinafter shortly referred to as the Act of 1981); and Section 4 of the said Act of 1981 had conferred on the High Court of Bombay the additional powers which were exercisable by the Tribunal de Relacao. Section 8(1) of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Judicial Commissioner's Court) Regulation 1963, he submitted made the Court of the Judicial Commissioner as the Highest Civil and Criminal Court of appeal and revision in Goa, Daman and Diu with all such 4 jurisdiction as under the law in force, immediately before the commencement of this Regulation was exercisable in respect of that territory by the Tribunal de Relacao – the highest Court of Appeal for the said territory during Portuguese regime. Goa, Daman and Diu Judicial Commissioner's Court (Declaration as High Court) Act, 1964, he further submitted, was enacted for declaring the Goa, Daman and Diu Judicial Commissioner's Court as High Court for the purposes of Articles 123, 133 and 134 and the said enactment provided for appeals to the Supreme Court of India from the judgment, decree or sentences passed by the Tribunal de Relacao under Section 7 of the said Act. 3. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2008) 3 SCC 279, New India Assurance Company Ltd Versus Nusli Neville Wadia and another, he tried to persuade us to the view that there ought to be the purposive construction of any Statute to be resorted to in order to fulfill the objects of the Act lest literal construction leading to anomaly or absurdity; and in the instant case, the purposive construction of the Act of 1981 would not allow taking away of Letters Patent Appeal's appellate jurisdiction available under the charter to the High Court at Bombay. He 5 further submitted that the Letters Patent is the charter under which the High Court is established and the powers given to the High Court into the Letters Patent are akin to the constitutional powers and as such the right to entertain the appeal against the judgment of a Single Judge available under the Letters Patent would not get excluded. To reinforce this submission, he relied upon the judgment reported in (2002)3 SCC 705 Sharda Devi Versus State of Bihar. In this context, he argued, the intent of the law makers in incorporating Section 4 in the Act of 1981 was not to abridge the powers of the High Court but to expand them with the additional powers which were exercisable by the Tribunal de Relacao. Otherwise, he argued, the conferment of such jurisdictional powers and authority as, under the law in force immediately before the appointed day are exercisable in respect of the said territories by the Court of Judicial Commissioner on the High Court at Bombay would get abridged in terms of exceptions and modifications, particularly as regards non-application of provisions of Articles 216, 217, 218, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 224A, 225, 230, 231 of the Constitution of India, under Section 6 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Judicial Commissioner's Court (Declaration as High Court) Act 1964. In addition to such 6 oral submission, the learned Advocate Mulgaonkar for the appellant placed on record written submissions which are marked 'X' for identification. 4. In Panjumal Hassomal Advani's case (supra) the Division Bench of the High Court at Bombay considered the following propositions of law enunciated in the case of Young Versus Bristol Aeroplane Company Ltd reported in (1944)1 KB 718 in order to arrive at the ratio that normally one Division Bench of a High Court cannot take a view contrary to the decision given by another Bench of that Court: “The Court of appeal is bound to follow its own decision and those of Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, and the 'full' court is in the same position in this respect as a division of the Court consisting of 3 members. The only exceptions to this rule are; (i) The Court is entitled and bound to decide which of two conflicting decisions of its own it will follow: (ii) The Court is bound to refuse to follow a decision of its own which though not expressly overruled cannot, in its opinion, stand with a decision of the house of Lords; (iii)Thee Court is not bound to follow the decision of its own if it is satisfied that the decision was 7 given per incuriam ” 5. No decision of the Apex Court contrary to the one taken by this Division Bench has been brought to our notice. Perusal of the judgment in L.P.A. No.15/2000 clearly shows that this Bench from Para 39 to 46 of its judgment did consider all the relevant provisions of law namely (i) Ordinance of 1962 continuing of Portuguese Laws then prevailing even after liberation of Goa, Daman and Diu (ii) Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration )Act 1962 (Successor to the Ordinance) continuing the former laws till amended or repealed by a competent legislation (iii) Goa, Daman and Diu (Judicial Commissioner Court) Regulation, 1963 (iv) Goa, Daman and Diu Commissioner's Court (Declaration as High Court) Act, 1964 v) the High Court at Bombay (Extension of jurisdiction to Goa, Daman and Diu) Act, 1981 vi) Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987 conferring Statehood on Goa and making provision for a common High Court for Maharashtra, Goa, Dadra and Nagarhaveli, Daman and Diu, vii)The Removal of Difficulties Order, 1982 as well as judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P. V. Hemalatha Versus Kattamkandi Puthiya Maliackal, Saheeda, and anr. reported at (2002) 5 SCC 548 in order to reach the following conclusions (i) that after abolition of Tribunal de Relacao, 8 the Court of Judicial Commissioner started functioning as High Court for the union territories of Goa, Daman and Diu and it had no remedy of any intra-court appeal then (ii) The word 'jurisdiction' as it appears in Section 3 only means the power to take cognizance and is employed to extend territorial jurisdiction of Bombay High Court to union territories of Goa, Daman and Diu and the scope of said power to take cognizance is prescribed in Section 4 of the Act of 1981. 6. If Section 3 of the Act of 1981 had the effect of preserving jurisdiction of Bombay High Court over the Maharashtra and extend it to union territory of Goa. There was no need for Section 4 of the said Act. From the purposive construction of the relevant Statutes, it can be seen that Section 4 was incorporated in the Act of 1981 not to abridge or expand the powers of the High Court at Bombay but to preserve the identity of the judicial apparatus functioning at Goa, Daman and Diu dispensing justice with Special Laws and special remedies in force in the said territories, particularly on the background of liberation of the people of Goa, Daman and Diu, and not their conquest, giving them the freedom to govern themselves with their laws and 9 customs not in conflict with the Constitution. Considering this aspect, the statutory enactment of Section 4 of the Act of 1981 maintained the status-quo as regards non-availability of remedy of Letters Patent Appeal – intra- court appeal to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner and its predecessor the Tribunal de Relacao under Portuguese Rule. Thus, the remedy of Letters Patent Appeals available under the Letters Patent- charter under which the High Court of Bombay at Bombay was established stands excluded by the statutory enactment of Section 4 of the Act of 1981. 7. As regards the exceptions and modifications under Section 6 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Judicial Commissioner's Court (Declaration as High Court) Act, 1964 particularly as regards the non-application of the provisions of Articles 216, 217, 218, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 224A, 225, 230 and 231 it would suffice to say that the High Court of Bombay at Panaji functions as its Bench and not as an independent High Court. Merit of the decision in L.P.A. No.15/2000, therefore, remains unsullied even in the face of submissions made in that regard. 8. It is not possible to say that the decision of the 10 Division Bench in L.P.A. No.15/2000, Sanjay Z. Rane and 3 others Versus Saibai S. Dubaxi and others was given per incuriam. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to sit in appeal over the earlier decision taken in the said case and to take a view contrary to the decision taken therein. 7. We, therefore, reiterate our earlier decision that the Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable before us at the Bench at Panaji. The Letters Patent Appeal No.14/2009, therefore, stands dismissed with no order as to costs. S. B. DESHMUKH, J. U. D. SALVI, J. SMA