JUDGMENT Since the parties are common in these appeals, they are clubbed, heard and disposed of by this common order. 2. W.A. No. 6677 of 2003 is filed by the Secretary, Nagawala Gram Panchayat, Nagawala, Mysore Taluk and District. W.A. No. 5936 of 2003 is filed by one Sri B.N. Mahadeva, who was arrayed as 5th respondent in the writ petition filed by one Sri Shankarappa in W.P. No. 35893 of 2001. 3. In these appeals, the Secretary, Nagawala Gram Panchayat as well as Sri Mahadeva, are calling in question the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 35893 of 2001, dated 8-7-2003. By the said order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and in that, has quashed the order passed by the Zilla Panchayat, Mysore, dated 10-9-2001, resolution dated 18-9-2001 passed by the 4th respondent-Grama Panchayat granting site and licence in favour of respondent 5. 4. The facts in nutshell are, that one Sri Shankarappa claims that he is the owner of a vacant site measuring East to West 15 feet and North to South 25 feet situate at Bommanahalli Village, Ilavala Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District. The description of the property is stated in the writ petition filed by Sri Shankarappa. 5. By passing the resolution, the Nagawala Gram Panchayat had allotted the aforesaid vacant site in favour of the 5th respondent viz., Sri B.N. Mahadeva. Aggrieved by this action of the Gram Panchayat, Sri Shankarappa, had questioned the same by filing an appeal before the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Mysore. The Executive Officer by his order dated 8-3-2001, has set aside the resolution granting site in favour of the 5th respondent and also the permission granted by Gram Panchayat in permitting the 5th respondent for putting up construction on the aforesaid vacant site. Further, the Executive Officer has held that Sri Shankarappa is the owner of the aforesaid vacant site. 6. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the Executive Officer, Sri Mahadeva had questioned the same before the President, Zilla Panchayat, Mysore. 7. The President of Zilla Panchayat, while entertaining the appeal filed by Sri Mahadeva, had granted an interim order of stay, staying the orders passed by the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Mysore, dated 8-3-2001. 8. 6. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the Executive Officer, Sri Mahadeva had questioned the same before the President, Zilla Panchayat, Mysore. 7. The President of Zilla Panchayat, while entertaining the appeal filed by Sri Mahadeva, had granted an interim order of stay, staying the orders passed by the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Mysore, dated 8-3-2001. 8. Sri Shankarappa being aggrieved by the interim order so passed by the President of Zilla Panchayat, Mysore, was before this Court in W.P. No. 14492 of 2001. This Court by its order dated 28-6-2001, was pleased to dispose of the writ petition filed by Sri Shankarappa and was further pleased to direct the President, Zilla Panchayat, Mysore, to dispose of the appeal filed by the 5th respondent in accordance with law and further directed the 4th respondent in the writ petition to maintain status quo regarding the property till the disposal of the appeal by the President, Zilla Panchayat, Mysore. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is as under: “Therefore, in the interest of doing justice to the parties, since the parties are already before the Zilla Panchayat, though the order is not passed by the Competent Officer, it is directed to treat the appeal filed by the 5th respondent as a reference order made under Section 237(1) for the purpose of examining the case of the parties and to pass appropriate order as provided under Section 237(2) of the Act. In this view of the matter, the interim order granted by the Zilla Panchayat could not be interfered with for the reasons stated and observations made in this order and shall be the interim order pending consideration of the order that would be passed by the Zilla Panchayat. Further, pending consideration of the reference order, as directed by this Court, pursuant to Annexure-G, the 4th respondent is directed to maintain status quo regarding the property in question". 9. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the President, Zilla Panchayat, Mysore, has disposed of the appeal filed by Sri Mahadeva by his order dated 10-9-2001. By the impugned order, the President, Zilla Panchayat, has allowed the appeal filed by Sri Mahadeva and has set aside the order passed by the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat, Mysore. 9. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the President, Zilla Panchayat, Mysore, has disposed of the appeal filed by Sri Mahadeva by his order dated 10-9-2001. By the impugned order, the President, Zilla Panchayat, has allowed the appeal filed by Sri Mahadeva and has set aside the order passed by the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat, Mysore. It is the correctness or otherwise of the said order passed by the President, Zilla Panchayat, Mysore, was the subject-matter of the writ petition before this Court. 10. It appears, after disposal of the appeal by the President, Zilla Panchayat, Mysore, the Nagawala Gram Panchayat had passed a resolution dated 18-9-2001 granting the site and also licence for construction on the vacant site, which the petitioner claims that he is the owner of the property, in favour of the 5th respondent. 11. Therefore, during the pendency of the petition, the petitioner with the permission of the Court has amended the prayer portion and thereby, he had also questioned the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat dated 18-9-2001 granting the site and also licence for construction on the vacant site in favour of the 5th respondent viz., Sri Mahadeva. 12. After hearing the learned Counsels for the parties to the lis, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and further, has quashed the order passed by the Zilla Panchayat dated 10-9-2001, resolution dated 18-9-2001 granting site in favour of respondent 5 and also the licence granted by the 4th respondent permitting the 5th respondent to put construction. It is the correctness or otherwise of the said order passed by the learned Single Judge is the subject-matter in these writ appeals before us. 13. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition, has taken exception to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 14492 of 2001. According to the learned Single Judge, the President, Zilla Panchayat, Mysore, has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal filed by the 5th respondent viz., Sri Mahadeva. Therefore, according to the learned Single Judge, the President, Zilla Panchayat, could not have passed the impugned order dated 10-9-2001. We cannot countenance the reasoning and conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge. According to the learned Single Judge, the President, Zilla Panchayat, Mysore, has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal filed by the 5th respondent viz., Sri Mahadeva. Therefore, according to the learned Single Judge, the President, Zilla Panchayat, could not have passed the impugned order dated 10-9-2001. We cannot countenance the reasoning and conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge. We say so, for the reason, that the learned Single Judge, while disposing of W.P. No. 14492 of 2001, in order to do complete justice to both the parties, had directed the President, Zilla Panchayat, Mysore, to dispose of the appeal filed by the 5th respondent, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the interested parties. That order had become final, in the sense, the parties to the writ proceedings have not questioned the said order before any superior forum. Therefore, the President, Zilla Panchayat, Mysore, was obliged to dispose of the appeal filed by the 5th respondent as directed by this Court in W.P. No. 14492 of 2001. 14. The learned Single judge, while disposing of the W.P. No. 35893 of 2001 could not have taken exception to the order passed by another Single Judge in W.P. No. 14492 of 2001. We will not say more about the reasoning and the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge, but only extract the observations made by the Supreme Court on the desirability of one Single Judge to follow the decision of another Single Judge. The Supreme Court in the case of Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija v Collector1 has stated that "one must remember that pursuit of the law, however, glamorous it is, has its own limitations on the Bench. In a Multi-Judge Court, the Judges are bound by precedents and procedure. They could use their discretion only when there is no declared principle to be found, no rule and no authority. Judicial decorum and legal propriety demand that, where a learned Single Judge or a Division Bench does not agree with the decision of a Bench of Co-ordinate Jurisdiction, the matter shall be referred to a Larger Bench. It is subversion of judicial process not to follow this procedure. 15. In view of the settled legal principles, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge could not have taken exception to the order passed by another Single Judge in W.P. No. 14492 of 2001. It is subversion of judicial process not to follow this procedure. 15. In view of the settled legal principles, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge could not have taken exception to the order passed by another Single Judge in W.P. No. 14492 of 2001. As we have already stated, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition primarily on the ground that the President, Zilla Panchayat, Mysore, had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal filed by the 5th respondent and accordingly, has set aside the order so passed. In our view, the reasoning and the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge, cannot be sustained by us. Therefore, the matter requires to be sent back to the learned Single Judge for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. But, since the matter is pending before this Court from last three years, instead of remanding the matter to the learned Single Judge for fresh disposal in accordance with law, we thought it fit to hear Sri B. Srinivasa Gowda, learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent-Sri Shankarappa on merits and also the other learned Counsel, who represent the respondents in the writ petition. 16. Sri Srinivasa Gowda, learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent-Sri Shankarappa would submit, that the order passed by the President, Zilla Panchayat, Mysore, is not a speaking order, in the sense, it does not contain any reason whatsoever and therefore, the same is arbitrary, unfair and unjust and in violation of Article 14 or unfair procedure offending Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he requests us to set aside the order passed by the President, Mysore Zilla Panchayat, Mysore, dated 10-9-2001. 17. The contesting respondents in the appeal sought to justify the impugned order. 18. We have carefully persued the order passed by the President, Zilla Panchayat, Mysore, dated 10-9-2001. A perusal of the same would clearly demonstrate the non-application of mind by the President, Zilla; Panchayat, Mysore, while allowing the appeal filed by Sri Mahadeva. In our opinion, the order should contain cogent reasons and the order should speak for itself an order containing no reason is no order in the eye of law. Therefore, the same cannot be sustained by us and the same requires to be set aside by this Court. 19. In our opinion, the order should contain cogent reasons and the order should speak for itself an order containing no reason is no order in the eye of law. Therefore, the same cannot be sustained by us and the same requires to be set aside by this Court. 19. Further, pursuant to the order passed by the President, Zilla Panchayat, Mysore, the 4th respondent-Nagawala Gram Panchayat in W.P. No. 35893 of 2001 has passed a resolution dated 18-9-2001. Since the primary order is set aside by us, the consequential resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, dated 18-9-2001 also requires to be set aside. 20. Accordingly, the following.- ORDER I. Appeals are allowed; II. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 35893 of2001, dated 8-7-2003 is set aside; III. Further, the order passed by the President, Mysore Zilla Panchayat, Mysore, dated 10-9-2001 and the resolution passed by the Secretary, Nagawala Gram Panchayat, dated 18-9-2001 are also set aside; IV. The matters are remitted back to the President, Zilla Panchayat, Mysore, to decide the appeal filed by the 5th respondent, as directed by this Court in W.P. No. 14492 of 2001 in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties interested in the lis; V. All the other contentions of both the parties are left open. Ordered accordingly.