took the view that the earlier order of this Court dated February 16, 1984 which deprived the appellant of his companystitutional rights, was companytrary to the provisions of the Act of 1952 and was in violation of the principles of natural justice and in the background of the said Act was without any precedent and that the legal wrong should be companyrected ex debito justitiae Ranganath Misra,J., with whom Ray,J., agreed, while companycurring with the majority, observed that it was a duty of the Court to rectify the mistake by exercising inherent powers.
By majority of 5 2 the appeal was allowed and all proceedings in the cases against the appellant before the High Court pursuant to the said order of the Constitution Bench dated February 16, 1984, were set aside and quashed.
The learned Judge rejected the objection and framed charges against the appellant, which were challenged by him by filing a Special Leave Petition to appeal before this Court wherein the question of jurisdiction of the High Court to try the cases was also raised.
It was numbered as Criminal Appeal No.468 of 1986 and was ultimately referred to a seven Judge Bench.
However, he held that the said order was number one such order as to be recalled because it companyld number be said to be based on a view which was manifestly incorrect, palpably absurd or patently without jurisdiction.
The other writ petitions were tagged to that case.
Mukharji, Oza and Natarajan, JJ.
In that he agreed with Venkatachaliah,J. as he then was who gave a dissenting opinion.
To the same effect is the view expressed by Oza, Ray, Venkatachaliah and Ranganathan,JJ.
