PRABHAKAR RAO N. MAWLE versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1965] 3 S.C.R. 743 · Decided: 09-04-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
PRABHAKAR RAO N. MAWLE 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
April 9, 1965 
[K. SUBBA RAO, K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. C. SHAH 
AND s. M. S!KRI, JJ.] 
Madras Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, (Act 8 of 1949) 
s. 2(1) and States Reorganisation Act (37 of 1956), ss. 65, 119 and 121-
App!icability of Madras Act in Telangana area of Andhra Pradesh 
State. 
By s. 2(1) of the Madras Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act 
1949, the High Court of Madras was competent to issue an order 
against any person that no proceedings shall be instituted by him in 
any court (i) in the Presidency-town without the leave of the High 
Court, and (ii) 'elsewhere without the leave of the District and Ses-
sions Judge. On the application of the Advocate-General of Andhra 
Pradesh the High Court of Andhra Pradesh ordered that no proceed-
ing should be instituted by the appellant in the City of Hyderabad 
without leave of the High Court, in the City of Secunderabad with-
out leave of the Chief City Civil Judge and elsewhere, without leave 
of the concerned District and Sessions Judge. 
In his app2al to this Court, the appellant contended that: 
(i) 
the High Court had no jurisdiction to take action under the 
Act as its provisions were not extended to the Telangana area of the 
State, which formed part of the former State of Hyderabad; and (ii) 
the Act was unconstitutional because it prevented some citizens from 
·approaching the Court, which everyone is entitled to in a State 
governed by the rule of law. 
HELD: (i) (Per K. Subba Rao, K. N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah 
and S. M. Sikri, JJ.) The High Court was in error in holding that the 
Act merely created a procedural jurisdiction to put persons who in-
dulge habitually in vexatious litigation under a procedural restraint, 
in the former High Court of Madras, which jurisdiction, on its divi-
sion into the two High Courts of Madras and Andhra Pradesh in-
hered in both the High Courts and continued to inhere in the High 
Court of Andhra Pradesh even for the purposes of those areas to 
which the Act had not been extended. [752 D-F] 
The Act was passed by the Madras Provincial Legislature, and 
conferred jurisdiction upon the Madras High Court to deal with habi-
tual litigants indul,qing in vexatious liti({ation. It Vv'as not an inherent 
jurisdiction of the Madras High Court. By ss. 30 and 53 of the Andhra 
State Act, 1953, the Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act continued 
to be in force in the Andhra State, and the Andhra High Court 
possessed the same jurisdiction as the former Madras High Court. 
But the Act is unworkable in the State of Andhra Pradesh which is 
formed under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, by adding the 
Telangana area of the former Hyderabad State to the State of 
Andhra; and s. 65 of the States Reorganisation Act does not alter the 
position. (753-H] 
743 
744 
SUPREME COURT REPoRTS 
[1965) 3 B.C.R. 
' 
_All laws are i_ntended to operate territorially and no Provindal 
A. 
Legislature !n India, possesses extra-tei:ritorial jurisdiction. What the 
Madras Legislature enacted was to operate in its own territorv and 
it said so in the Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act. ln its opera-
tive part also, the order under the Act was to be made with ~ terri-
toria_I distinction between the Presidency town and the rest of the 
Presidency of Madras. The Aat vested a jurisdiction in the High 
Court to deal with a particular type of litigant, but the Act made the 
B 
High Court deal with the matter territorially and if new territories 
were to be governed by it, it had to be extended to the new terri-
tories and till so extended, the Act can only operate within the old 
territories. Under s .. 119 of the States Reorganisation Act no law of 
one Of the amalgamating States is to be extended to the area of the 
other amalgamating States, except by a competent legislative or other · 
competent authority, and further, the law shall be constTU.d as res-
C 
tricted to the .territories within each State immediately before the 
reorganisation. Since the Act has not been extended to the Telangana 
area, 'the application of the Act in that area is made impossible by 
s. 119, and it cannot be extended by judicial construction. No doubt, 
the Court possesses a power, under s. 121 of the States Reorganisation 
Act, to construe laws by adapting them in such a manner. as to facili-
tate their application to the newly formed State, qut the power is of 
adaptation and oo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.