Ramaswamy ( 1 ) VEWED, that since petition was of PIL and was not adversorial in nature, and since the matter was pending for nearly a decade, if a reference were to be made to a three Judge Bench, it may be further delayed. Therefore, under Article 142 he could issue directions to enforce his order in its entirety even in respect of that portion of the order from which his brother Judge and dissented, in order to do complete justice in the case. By availing of Article 142, a Single Judge sitting in a Division Bench of two Judges has issued directions singly although there is a difference of opinion between him and his brother Judge. It is this part of this order which is sought to be reviewed on the ground that is discloses an error apparent on the face of the record. ( 2 ) ARTICLE 145 (1) of the Constitution provides that subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliment, Supreme Court may, from time to time, with the approval of me President, make rules for regulating generally the practice and procedure of the court. The Supreme Court Rules have been framed under this provision. Under C. (2) of Article 145, subject to the provisions of Cl. (3), rules made under this Article may fix the minimum number of Judges who are to sit for any purpose, and may provide for the powers of single Judges and Division Courts. Cl. (5) of Article 145 provides. "145 (5): No judgment and no such opinion shall be delivered by the Supreme Court save with the concurrence of a majority of the Judges present at the hearing of the case, but nothing in this clause shall he deemed to prevent a Judge who does not concur from delivering a dissenting judgment or opinion. " ( 3 ) IN view of Article 145 (5) the concurrence of a majority of Judges present at the hearing of a case is necessary for any judgment or order. When a Bench consists of two Judges and they differ, the correct procedure is to refer the matter to the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench. " ( 3 ) IN view of Article 145 (5) the concurrence of a majority of Judges present at the hearing of a case is necessary for any judgment or order. When a Bench consists of two Judges and they differ, the correct procedure is to refer the matter to the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench. Under Order VII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, Subject to the other provision of these rules, every cause, appeal or matter shall be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than two Judges nominated by the Chief Justice subject to certain provisos. Rule 2 of Order VII provides that where, in the course of the hearing of any cause appeal or other proceeding, the Bench considers that the matter should be dealt with by a larger Bench, it shall refer the matter to the Chief Justice, who shall thereupon constitute such a Bench for i. ts hearing. Order XXXV deals with applications for enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32 of the Constitution. Rule 1 and 10 of Order XXXV provides : "1. (1) : Every petition under Article 32 of the Constitution shall be in writing and shall he heard by a Divison Court of not less than five Judges provided that a petition which does not raise a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution may be heard and decided by a Division Court of le ss then five Judges and during vacation, by the Vacation Judge silting singly. " "10 (1) : Unless the Court otherwise orders, the rule nisi together with a copy of petition and of he affidavit in support thereof shall be served on the respondent no less than twenty-one days before the returnable date. The rule shall be served on all persons directly affected and on such other persons as the court may direct. (2) Affidavits in opposition shall be tiled in the Registry not later than four days before the returnable dale and affidavits in reply shall be filed within two days of the service of the affidavit in opposition. "therefore, counter affidavits can be fifed by the respondents in a public interest litigation, and further affidavits in rejoinder etc. can also be filed. "therefore, counter affidavits can be fifed by the respondents in a public interest litigation, and further affidavits in rejoinder etc. can also be filed. ( 4 ) THERE is no provision under Order XXXV for any special procdure in respect of a pubic interest petition under Article 32. The petition will have to be servved on the respondents who have a right to tile counter Affidavit. Although the proceedings in a public interest litigation may not be adversorial in a given case, there can clearly be different perceptions of the same problem or its solution and the respondents are entitled to put forth their own view before the court which may or not coincide with the view of the petitioner. The Court may come to a view different from that of and of the parties. Therefore, even in a public interest litigation, if the members of the Bench hold different views, the provisions of Article 145 (5) will apply and the matter will have to be decided by a majority. When a Bench consists of two Judges and they differ the matter must necessarily. be referred to the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench. In fact this legal position is expressly noted by Ramaswamy, J. However, he has taken the view that despite the provisions of Article 145 (5), he can take the assistance of Article 142 for the purpose of issuing directions even though his brother Judge has differed from these directions. ( 5 ) WE do not find anything in Article 142 which enables the court to do so. Article 142 provides as follows: "142. Enforcement of decrees and order of Supreme Court and Order as to discovery, etc- (1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it and any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe. " ( 6 ) IT does not and cannot override Article 145 (5 ). The decrees or orders issued Article 142 must be issued with the concurrence of the majority of Judges hearing the matter. " ( 6 ) IT does not and cannot override Article 145 (5 ). The decrees or orders issued Article 142 must be issued with the concurrence of the majority of Judges hearing the matter. In the case of Prem Chand Garg Vs. Excise Commissioner, (AIR SC 996), a Bench of five Judges of this court considered a Rule made by this Court Providing for imposition of terms as to costs and as to giving of security in a petition under Article 32. The Rule was sought to be justified inter alia. on the ground that the powers conferred on this Court under Article 142 were very wide and could not be controlled by Article 32. Negativing this contention this court said, "the powers of this Court under Article 142 (1) are no doubt very wide they are intended and would be exercised in the interest of justice. But that is not to be say that an order can be made by this Court which is inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed to Part III of the Constitution. An order which this court can make in order to docomplete justice between the parties must not only be consistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution but it cannot even be inconsistent with the substantive provisions of the relevant statutory laws. Therefore, we do not think it would be possible to hold that Article 142 ( 1) confers upon this court powers which can contravene the provision of Article 32". Similarly, powers conferred by Article 142 (1) also cannot contravene the provisions of Article 145 (5 ). Article 142 would not entitle a Judge sitting on a Bench of two Judges who differs form his colleague to issue directions for the enforcement of his order although it may not be the agreed order of the Bench of two Judges. If this were to be permitted, it would lead to conflicting directions being issued by each Judge under Article 142, directions which may quite possible nullify the directions given by another Judge on the same Bench. This would put the Court in an untenable position. Because if in a Bench of two Judges, one Judge can resort to Article 142 for enforcement of his directions, the second. Judge can do likewise for the enforcement of his directions. This would put the Court in an untenable position. Because if in a Bench of two Judges, one Judge can resort to Article 142 for enforcement of his directions, the second. Judge can do likewise for the enforcement of his directions. And even in a larger - Bench, a Judge holding a minority view can issue his order under Article 142 although it may conflict with the order issued by the majority. This would put this Court in an indefensible situation and lead to total confusion. Article 142 is not meant for such a purpose and cannot be resorted to in this fashion. ( 7 ) THE learned Judge is in error in resorting to Article 142 for the purpose of enforcement of his directions although his brother Judge lias dissented from those directions. The justification which is put forward for resorting to Article 142 is that reference to a large Bench would cause delay. This cannot be a ground for not following the provisions of the Constitution under Article 145. Whenever a matter has to be referred to a larger Bench, there is bound to be some delay. But such a reference is necessary in the interest of justice. It is necessary that the the court speaks with one voice and that voice is the majority as propounded in Article 145 (5 ). Only then can its orders be enforced. When two Judges differ, the matter will have to be decided by a larger Bench. ( 8 ) WE, therefore, allow this review petition. The directions given by the learned Judge relating to prostitution and/or its ameloration or eradication are set aside. This, however, should not be understood as preventing the Union or state Governments from formulating their own policies in this area or taking measures to implement them. His observations relating to the use of Article 142 in this connection are also set aside and question of giving any direction in relation to prostitution, its eradication or amelioration will have to be placed before a larger Bench if any directions are required to be given in that connection by this Court. The matter should be placed before the Hon ble Chief Justice for considering whether a larger Bench. should be constituted for this purpose.