R. D. AGARWALA & ANR. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 778 · Decided: 23-02-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

778 
R. D. AGARWALA & ANR. ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
February 23, 1970 
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE, 
A. N. GROVER AND A. N. RAY, JJ.] 
Practice and Pi-ocedure-Single Judge deciding iniportant questions and 
suo motu granting certificate 'under Art. 132(1) of the Constitution-
Pro_.,,riety. 
A 
B 
Writ petitions involving. important questions of law came up before 
C 
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 n1otu granted a certificate under Art. 132(1) of 
1he constitution for appeal to this court. 
HELD : The 
action of the 
Judge though 
technically 
permissible 
wa-; improper, because, either the Judge should have referred the case<; 
to a Bench, or alloY.ied the P.arties to pursue their right of appeal to 
a 
D 
Bench against the decision of the single Judge, without short 
circuiting 
tht right by passing on the cases to this Court. [779 E-G) 
CIVIL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 2634 
of 1969 and 63 of 1970. 
Appeals from the judgment and order dated December 5, 
E 
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 appel-
F 
!ants. 
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. 
C.A. No. 63 of 1970. 
R. V. S. Mani .. for the appellants. 
S. P. Nayar, for respQndent No. 1. 
S. K. Mehta, K. L. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja and Sona Bhatiani 
for respondents Nos. 3 and 4. 
. 
' 
G 
H 
,..
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
• 
R. D. AGARWALA v. UNION (Hidayatul/ah, C.J.) 
779 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayalullah, 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 Coun of 
Delhi which were disposed of by a common judgment delivered 
by a le3rned 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 im-
portant 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 Rajas-
than decision. He probably felt that as the points which he had 
to decide were not considered by this Court in any earlier deci-
sion and a• he had decided the case sitting singly, he should grant 
certificate .mo motu for appeal to this Court. 
In our opinion, and we say it respectfully, the learned Judte 
was ~ 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 par-
ties to take an appeal in the High Court itself under the provisions 
pertaining to appeals against decisions of a single Judge. Tke 
practice of deciding the case sitting singly and giving a certi-
ficate under Art. 132(1) for appeal to this Court although techni-
cally correct, is 111 improp.~r practice. Ii 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 Ol\ the case io 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 costs. 
V.P.S. 
Certificate Cancelled . 
(I) A.1.R. 1969. Raj. 281. 
780 
T. N. RAGHUNATHA REDDY 
v. 
MYSORE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY 
February 24, 1970 
[S. M. SIKRI, V. BKARGAVA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act 4 of 1939-'Kola

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.