1970 JTR(SC) 68
1970 AIR(SC) 299 ; 1971 AIR(SC) 299 ; 1971 1 SCA 335 ; 1970 1 SCC 708 ; 1971 SCD 79 ; 1970 2 SCJ 767 ; 1970 3 SCR 778 ; 1971 KHC 738
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. HIDAYATULLAH C.J.I., J.C. SHAH, K.S. HEGDE, A.N. GROVER AND A.N. RAY, JJ.
R. D. Agarwala and another, Appellants
Versus
Union of India and another Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 2634 of 1969 and 63 of l970, D/- 23-2-1970.
1. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.
2. The Jaipur Udyog Ltd., Interveners.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Sarjoo Prasad, Senior Advocate (Mr. Prem Nath Chaddha, Advocate, M/s. K. L. Mehta and S. K. Mehta, Advocates of M/s. K. L. Mehta and Co. and M/s. K. R. Nagaraja, M. G. Gupta and Miss Sona Bhatiani, Advocates, with him), for Appellants; Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocate, for Respondent No. 1; Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Senior Advocate (M/s. Govind Das and B. P. Singh Advocates, with him), (for No. 1) and Mr. M. C. Chagla, Senior Advocate (M/s. K. K. Jain, Bishambar Lal and H. K. Puri, Advocates, with him), (for No. 2), for Interveners.
In C. A. No. 63 of 1970 :
Mr. R. V. S. Mani, Advocate, for Appellants; Mr. S. P. Nayar, Advocate (for No. 1) and M/s. S. K. Mehta, and K. L. Mehta, Advocates of M/s. R. L Mehta and Co. and Mr. K. R. Nagaraja and Miss Sona Bhatiani, Advocates, (for Nos. 3 and 4), for Respondents.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.132(1)
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 132 (1) - Civil Appeals - Certificate granted - Appeals have been brought on certificate granted suo motu by learned single Judge under Article 132 (1) of Constitution of India - While granting the certificate, learned single Judge observed that at an earlier stage in case, request was made to him to refer these two petitions for decision to a Bench, because important questions were involved in them - At that time, learned Judge felt that since there was a Division Bench decision of Rajasthan High Court in Jaipur Udhyog Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1969 Raj 281 there was no need to refer matter to a larger Bench - Learned Judge goes on to say in order granting certificate that at time of hearing, he found that several questions arose before him which were not covered by Rajasthan decision – Held, Even if he did not make any reference, he should have allowed parties to take an appeal in High Court itself under provisions pertaining to appeals against decisions of a single Judge - Practice of deciding case sitting singly and giving a certificate under Article 132 (l) for appeal to this Court, although technically correct, is an improper practice - It is right of party to file an appeal in High Court itself against the decision of single Judge and that right should not be short-circuited by passing on case to SC for decision – Court think should not endorse this practice which would create a bad precedent in India – Court accordingly cancel certificate and leave parties free to file an appeal in High Court, if they so desire - Order accordingly.
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 132 (1) - Civil Appeals - Certificate granted - Appeals have been brought on certificate granted suo motu by learned single Judge under Article 132 (1) of Constitution of India - While granting the certificate, learned single Judge observed that at an earlier stage in case, request was made to him to refer these two petitions for decision to a Bench, because important questions were involved in them - At that time, learned Judge felt that since there was a Division Bench decision of Rajasthan High Court in Jaipur Udhyog Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1969 Raj 281 there was no need to refer matter to a larger Bench - Learned Judge goes on to say in order granting certificate that at time of hearing, he found that several questions arose before him which were not covered by Rajasthan decision – Held, Even if he did not make any reference, he should have allowed parties to take an appeal in High Court itself under provisions pertaining to appeals against decisions of a single Judge - Practice of deciding case sitting singly and giving a certificate under Article 132 (l) for appeal to this Court, although technically correct, is an improper practice - It is right of party to file an appeal in High Court itself against the decision of single Judge and that right should not be short-circuited by passing on case to SC for decision – Court think should not endorse this practice which would create a bad precedent in India – Court accordingly cancel certificate and leave parties free to file an appeal in High Court, if they so desire - Order accordingly.
Judgment
HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I.- This order will govern the disposal of Civil Appeals Nos. 2634 of 1969 and 63 of 1970. These two appeals arise out of two writ petitions filed in the High Court of Delhi which were disposed of by a common judgment delivered by a learned single Judge on December 5, 1969. The appeals have been brought on certificate granted suo motu by the learned single Judge under Article 132 (1) of the Constitution of India. While granting the certificate, the learned single Judge observed that at an earlier stage in the case, request was made to him to refer these two petitions for decision to a Bench, because important questions were involved in them. At that time, the learned Judge felt that since there was a Division Bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jaipur Udhyog Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1969 Raj 281 there was no need to refer the matter to a larger Bench. The learned Judge goes on to say in the order granting certificate that at the time of the hearing, he found that several questions arose before him which were not covered by the Rajasthan decision. He probably felt that as the points which he had to decide were not considered by this Court in any earlier decision and as he had decided the case sitting singly, he should grant certificate suo motu for appeal to this Court.
2. In our opinion, and we say it respectfully, the learned Judge was in error in not making a reference to a Bench when he found that important questions of law were arising before him. Even if he did not make any reference, he should have allowed the parties to take an appeal in the High Court itself under the provisions pertaining to appeals against decisions of a single Judge. The practice of deciding the case sitting singly and giving a certificate under Article 132 (l) for appeal to this Court, although technically correct, is an improper practice. it is the right of the party to file an appeal in the High Court itself against the decision of the single Judge and that right should not be short-circuited by passing on the case to the SC for decision. We think we should not endorse this practice which would create a bad precedent in India. We accordingly cancel the certificate and leave the parties free to file an appeal in the High Court, if they so desire. There will be no order as to costs.
Order accordingly.
For Citation : AIR 1971 SC 299