Judgment :- SRINIVASAN, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment in W.P. No. 2959 of 1992. Justice Kanakaraj held that the Writ Petition was not maintainable as he was bound by the judgment of the Full Bench in W.P. No. 6191 of 1990. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed. 2. When the appeal came up before a Division Bench for admission, the appeal was admitted and the following order was passed. “Let this appeal be referred to a larger Bench and placed for hearing along with W.P. No. 11853 of 1983 in which the question as to whether the judgment of the Full Bench in W.P. No. 6191 of 1990 is per incuriam and obiter dicta is under consideration”. The matter was placed before the first Bench on 12.7.1993. That Bench directed the matter to be posted along with W.P. No. 11853 of 1993 and W.P. No. 8442 of 1984. 3. Today we have heard these two writ petitions and dismissed the same as not maintainable answering the question raised in the order of reference by the single judge in the negative. We have held that the judgment of the Full Bench in W.P. No. 6191 of 1990 as well as the judgment of the Full Bench in Tamilarasans case are not per incuriam and obiter dicta and they are binding precedents. 4. This appeal was not originally included in the limit. It was directed by the Chief Justice to be called before us and the other two writ petitions referred to above are being heard today. Notice was given to counsel on both sides and they are present in court. Learned counsel for the appellant prayed for an adjournment on the ground that this case was already called without sufficient prior notice. He pointed out to counsel the great inconvenience which will be caused to all concerned in the matter if this matter alone is adjourned to another date. He also pointed out the there may not be much argument in this case independently apart from the points already urged in the other two matters heard by us just now. Learned counsel agreed to argue and contends vehemently that the judgments rendered by the two Full Benches are erroneous and they are per incuriam and obiter dicta . He also pointed out the there may not be much argument in this case independently apart from the points already urged in the other two matters heard by us just now. Learned counsel agreed to argue and contends vehemently that the judgments rendered by the two Full Benches are erroneous and they are per incuriam and obiter dicta . Learned counsel has adopted the reasoning of Justice Mishra in his judgment in K. Ganesans case K. Ganesan v. Special Officer, Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills, Ltd. , (1992-II Law Weekly page 406). She also submits that on merits the order, which is challenged in the writ petition is not sustainable at all and a writ should be issued in the present case. 5. We are unable to accept any of the contentions. We have decided that it is not open to a single Judge to question the correctness of a Full Bench of this Court. We have also taken the view that the two Full Bench judgments are valid and binding precedents. Hence, the view taken by Justice Kanakaraj in this matter is to be upheld. We cannot take any exception thereto. Once we hold that the writ petition is not maintainable, we cannot go into the merits of the case and decide the question raised by the petitioner. In the circumstances, we dismiss the Writ Appeal. 6. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and is dismissed, but however, without costs.