http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: R. D. AGARWALA & ANR.  ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/02/1970

BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) SHAH, J.C. HEGDE, K.S. GROVER, A.N. RAY, A.N.

CITATION:  1971 AIR  299            1970 SCR  (3) 778  1970 SCC  (1) 708  CITATOR INFO :  F          1971 SC1594  (2)

ACT:     Practice  and Procedure-Single Judge deciding  important questions  and  suo  motu granting  certificate  under  Art. 132(1) of the Constitution Propriety.

HEADNOTE: Writ petitions involving important questions of law came  up before  a single Judge of the High Court.  He was  requested by  the  parties to refer the cases to a  Divisional  Bench. Instead  of  doing so he disposed them of himself,  and  suo motu  granted  a  certificate  under  Art.  132(1)  of   the constitution for appeal to this court.     HELD  :  The  action of  the  Judge  though  technically permissible was improper, because, either the Judge  should’ have  referred the cases to a Bench, or allowed the  parties to  pursue  their  right of appeal to a  Bench  against  the decision  of the single Judge, without short circuiting  the right by passing on the cases to this Court. [779 E-G.]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos.  2634  of 1969 and 63 of 1970.     Appeals  from the judgment and order dated  December  5, 1969 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Nos. 220 and  725 of 1968.      C.A. No, 2634 of 1969.      Sarjoo  Prasad,  Prem Nath Chadda, K. L. Mehta,  S.  K. Mehta,K. R. Nagaraja, M. G. Gupta and Sona Bhatiani, for the appellants.      R. N. Sachthey, for respondent No.1.      M.  C.  Setalvad,  Govind  Das and  B.  P.  Singh,  for intervener No. 1.      M. C. Chagla, K. K. Jain, Bishamber Lal and H. K. Puri, for intervener no. 2.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    C.A. No. 63 of 1970.      R.V.S. Mani, for the appellants.      S. P. Nayar, for respondent No. 1.      S.  K.  Mehta,  K. L. Mehta, K. R.  Nagaraja  and  Sona Bhatiani,for respondents Nos. 3 and 4. 779      The Order of the Court was delivered by      Hidayatullah, C.J. 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 Art.  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 Udyog Ltd. v.  Union  of India  and another(’) 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.      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  Art. 132(1)  for  appeal  to  this  Court  although   technically correct,  is an improper practice.  If 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 Supreme  Court 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, it they so desire.  There will  be no order as to cost s. V.P.S.     Certificate Cancelled. (1) A.I.R. 1969.  Raj. 281. 780