ABDUL TAIYAB ABBAS BHAI MALIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by the petitioners for a certificate under Articles 132 and 133 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that in so far as the notification by the President of India constituting permanent Benches under section 51 (2) of the States Reorganisation Act is concerned, it involves a question about the interpretation of Articles 2, 3, 4 and Entry 78, List I, of the seventh Schedule of the Constitution. It is also contended that as regards the decision about the vires of Section 51 (2) of the States Reorganisation Act, although the decision is unanimous, but still it involves a substantial question of law, and the petitioners are entitled to a certificate under Article 133 of the constitution of India. As regards the question of locus standi of the petitioners and the question about the jurisdiction of the Benches vis-a-vis the principal seat, it was contended that there being difference of opinion in the judgment of this Court it itself indicates that it involves a substantial question of law of general importance. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Chunilal V. Mehta v. Century Spinning and manufacturing Co. Ltd. , AIR 1962 SC 1314 and Ahmedabad Mfg. Calico Ptg. Co. v. Ramtahel AIR 1972 SC 1598. He also placed reliance on the decisions after the amendment of Article 133 of the Constitution on the decisions of the Delhi high Court in Union of India v. Hafiz Mohd. , AIR 1975 Delhi 77 (FB) and New delhi Municipality v. State of A. P. , AIR 1976 Delhi 1 and the decision of the supreme Court in State Bank of India v. N. S. Money, AIR 1976 SC 1111 where their Lordships approved the view expressed in Union of India v. Hafiz Mohd. (supra), and contended that the petitioners are entitled to a certificate under articles 132 and 133 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) SHRI Gulab Gupta, appearing for the High Court Bar Association, Jabalpur, supported the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners; whereas Shri Sinha, appearing for the Union of India, and Shri G. M. Chaphekar, appearing for the High Court Bar Association, Indore, contended that the petitioners are not entitled to a certificate. It was contended on behalf of the contesting non-applicants that the decision of this Court is based on the principles laid down in Nasiruddin v. S. T. A. Tribunal, AIR 1976 SC 331. Consequently, even if it is conceded that the case involves questions of law, they could not be said to be substantial questions of law, and it also could not be said by this Court that those questions need a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court.