- (1.) On January 11, 1960, the Advocate General applied to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad for action against the appellant Prabhakar Rao H. Malwe under S. 2 of the Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act 1949 (Madras Act VIII of 1949), on the allegation that Mawle had been "habitually" and "without any reasonable ground" instituting "vexatious proceedings" in the courts within the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and also in the High Court and appearing in the cases in person; that he was responsible for a considerable amount of litigation or, in other words, that he was a vexatious and habitual litigant. In support of the petition for the invocation of the punitive provisions of the Act, the Advocate-General referred to the following cases: (i) In C.R.P. No. 1765 /58 Mawle described the judgment of the lower court as shocking to the sense of justice, a grave dereliction of duty, flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law and the natural justice, full with errors patent on the face, showing a gross manifest injustice done through the tyrannical arbitrary acts." It was stated that Mawle apologised to the High Court to escape proceedings for contempt of court. (ii) He filed a writ petition No. 1369/58 after the above Civil Revision Petition was dismissed and then preferred an appeal CCCA 42/59. (iii) He filed a stay petition against an intended execution before steps were taken and when the petition was dismissed he filed an appeal C. M. A. 86/59 and obtained stay. (iv) He filed an appeal against the dismissal of the writ petition 1369/58. He was thus said to have asked for five remedies in one suit (O. S. 200 of 1958). (v) In an appeal filed on 3rd June 1959 he did not pay court fee of Rs. 995 as stamps were not available undertaking to pay the balance which he did not pay. (vi) In S.R. 38516 and S. C. C. M. P. Mawle stated that as he had appeared in person- "without any weightage to his submissions though of law, for in the ends of justice, as against the professional privileges claimed by both these veteran advocates (Mr. O. V. Subbanayadu and Mr. Hari Narayanalal) even though they had taken the role of a party, sole witnesses, swearing false affidavits. . . . " (vii) In S.R. 12409/59 against decree in O.S. 109/1958, though himself the sole defendant, Mawle caused to be preferred an appeal in forma pauperis by his wife and children, getting the judgments under appeal privately printed and certifying them as true. (viii) C.R.P. No. 1094/59 against the judgment in suit No. 198/2 dismissed against his tenant he filed a revision petition which was dismissed in limine. (ix) C.R. P. No. 988/1959 filed against I.A. 230/58 in O.S. 99/2 of 1957 of the City Civil Court, Hyderabad was dismissed in limine. (x) He has filed S. R. 31845/59 as L.P.A. against an order refusing to review C.R.P. against a Small Cause Suit and S.R. No. 27605/59 as a L.P.A. against an order in a petition refusing to condone the delay in filing a review petition in a C. R. P. (xi) C.R.P. 954/1959 filed against an order in L. R. petition in a Small Cause Suit, originally attempted to be filed as an appeal. C. M. P. 5518 filed and stay ordered on condition that Malwe should deposit the decretal amount. He then withdrew the C. M. P. (xii) Severa l criminal matters in High Court Complaint in Cr. App. 406/58 and Cr. R. C. 506/59. (xiii) C. M. P. 1858/57 for taking action against the respondent for alleged contempt of court. (xiv) S. R. No. 43198/59, a L. P. Appeal. The Advocate General claimed that though the Act was not extended to the area covered by the former Hyderabad State, it must be treated as the law in force there by reason of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956.
(2.) Mawle was heard on notice and, as is to be expected from a litigant of his sort, filed a fairly long statement in reply denying each accusation and explaining his conduct. He questioned the jurisdiction of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to take action under the Act as its provisions were not extended to the area comprised in the former State of Hyderabad. He challenged the Act as ultra vires and unconstitutional on the ground that it abridged the right of citizens to seek redress in a court of law. He stated that he was a businessman and a landlord and owned considerable properties in the city of Hyderabad and other cities in the District and the State. He produced a certificate from the District Magistrate. He explained that owing to unpleasant experience he had to take away his work from advocates and since 1952 he had started conducting his own cases. He alleged that he had to recover a couple of lakhs of rupees from his clients/ tenants etc. and had, therefore, to file a large number of cases. He attempted an explanation of the cases to which the Advocate General had referred in his petition. He contended that the Act was not in force in the area comprised in the former State. of Hyderabad which after the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 became a part of the State of Andhra Pradesh and he challenged the Act itself as unconstitutional.
(3.) The High Court by its judgment dated April 21, 1961, now under appeal, held that the Act was both constitutional and intra vires, that the High Court had jurisdiction to make the order and that action under the Act was called for. The High Court ordered that no proceeding, civil or criminal, should be instituted by Mawle in the City of Hyderabad without the leave of the High Court, in the city of Secunderabad, without the leave of the Chief City Civil Judge and elsewhere without the leave of the District and Sessions Judge concerned. A copy of the order of the High Court was published in the Gazette of Andhra Pradesh as required by the Act. Mawle sought a certificate under Articles 132, 133, or 134 of the Constitution but the certificate was refused on the ground that no substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution or otherwise was involved. The petitioner then applied for and obtained special leave from this Court and filed the present appeal.;