Hasinuddin Khan and Anr. versus Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors. — Supreme Court (1980) — LawSathi Research

Hasinuddin Khan and Anr. versus Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors. — Supreme Court (1980) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief on the constitutional challenge: Civil Appeals Nos. 1394/74, 543/75 and 242/79 and SLP (C) No. 2152/74 dismissed with no order as to costs. Liberty left to the appellants to seek special leave against the learned single judge's decision on merits, with delay to be condoned, additional grounds (except constitutional points) permitted, and the petitions listed before the Division Bench on 4-10-1979.

Issue for consideration

Whether the U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1962 and the U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) (Amendment) Act, Act 33 of 1972 are constitutionally valid. +1 more

Court's answer

Neither the U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1962 nor the U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) (Amendment) Act (Act 33 of 1972) is unconstitutional; the challenge to these Acts on the ground of unconstitutionality is rejected, there being no substance in the contention in view of the Court's earlier judgments and the Constitution Bench's dismissal of the earlier S.L.P.

Ratio / Principle

The Civil Appeals and the Special Leave Petition are dismissed and there will be no order as to costs.

Key takeaways

The appellants may ask for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the learned single judge, and the delay caused in filing the S.L.Ps in this Court will be condoned since the appellants were pursuing their remedy by filing these appeals in this Court.ratio¶33
The petition for permission to urge additional grounds, except on Constitutional points, was treated as having been filed in the S.L.P., and the three petitions were directed to be listed before the Division Bench on 4-10-1979.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Supreme Court (Judgment delivered by Chandrachud, C.J.): Upheld the constitutional validity of the U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1962 and the U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) (Amendment) Act, Act 33 of 1972, in view of State of Bombay v. Narothamdas ([1951] S.C.R. 51), Union of India v. Mahindra Supply Co. ([1962] 3 S.C.R. 497) and Ram Adhar Singh v. Ramroop Singh & Ors. ([1968] 2 S.C.R. 95), all followed, and of the earlier dismissal by the Constitution Bench of the Special Leave Petition filed against the Allahabad High Court judgment upholding the validity of the 1962 Act. Civil Appeals Nos. 1394/74, 543/75 and 242/79 and Special Leave Petition (CIVIL) No. 2152 of 1974, all arising from the Judgment and Order dated 22-5-1973 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeals Nos. 26/73, 682/72, 502/72 and 469/72, were dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellants were left free to seek special leave against the learned single judge's decision on the merits; the delay in filing such S.L.P. was to be condoned under the Court's inherent powers, the petition to urge additional grounds (except on Constitutional points) was treated as filed in SLP (C) No. 361 of 1976, and the petitions were listed before the Division Bench on 4-10-1979.

1207

A

HASINUDDIN KHAN AND ANR.

v.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

September 13, 1979

[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., V. R KRISHNA IYER, N. L. UNTWALIA, B p, N. SHINGHAL AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.]

U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1912 and U.P. High Court (AbOlition of Letters Patent Appeals) (Aniendment) Act, Act 33 of 1972-Constitutional validity of-Inherent powers of Court to condone dtday and permit addi:ion11( evidence.

HELD: Neither the U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appea;s) Art, 1962 nor the U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) (Amendment) Act, 1962, is unconstitutional. [1208C]

c

State of Bombay v. Narothamdas, [1951] S.C.R. 51; Union of lndia v. Mahindra Supply Co. [1962] 3 S.C.R. 497 and Ram Adhar Singh v. Ramroop Singh & Ors., [1968] 2 S.C.R. 95; followed.

D

[The Court under its inherent powers condoned the delay in filira.g of S.L.P. challenging the decision of the High Court on merits and allowed the petitioner to urge additiona.1 grounds except on constitutional points].

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1394/74, 543/75 and 242/79.

E

Appeals from the Judgment and Order dated 22-5-1973 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeals Nos. 26/73, 682/72 and 502/72.

AND

. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 2152 of 1974.

From the Judgment and Order dated 22-5-1973 of the Allahabad High Court in Sp!. Appeal No. 469 /72.

J.P. Goyal and S. K. Jain for the Appellants in CA 1394/74.

G. S. Chaterjee for the Petitioners in SLP 2152/74.

G

A. p. S. Chauhan and v. C. Prashar for the RR 3 & 4 in CA 1394 / 74,

S. N. And/ey, Uma Datta and Tara Chand Sharma for the Appellants in CA 543/75.

H

R. N. Dixit for the Appellant in CA 242/79.

E. C. Agarwala for th• Re+ipondent in CA 543/75.

(191i0] 2 l.C.R.

STJPREME COURT REPORTS

1208

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

CHANDRACHUD, C.J.-In view of the Judgment of this Court in State of Bombay v. Narothamdas, Jethabhai & Anr.(') Union of India V· Mahindra Supply Company(') and Ram Adhar Singh v. Ramroop Singh & Ors.(') and in view of the fact that the Special Leave Petition B filed against the judgment rendered by the High Court of Allahabad, upholding the validity of the 1962 Act was dismissed by the Constitution. Bench of this Court after an elaborate argument, there is no substance in the contention that either the U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1962 or the U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) (Amendment) Act, Act 33 of 1972 is un- C constitutional. The challenge to these Acts on the gi-ound of their unconstitutionality is, therefore, rejected. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants have very fairly conceded that position. Accordingly, the Civil Appeals and the Special Leave Petition are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

D However, the appellants may, if so advised, ask for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the learned single judge. We are sure that the delay caused in filing the S.L.Ps in this Court will be condoned since the appellants were pursuing their remedy by filing these appeals in this Court.

E Learned counsel for the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 543/75 says that the appellant has already filed special leave petition (Civil) No. 361 of 1976 in this Court challenging the decision of the learned single judge of the Allahabad High Court on the merits of the matter. He has also filed an application seeking leave of this Court for urging additional grounds and an application for coodonation of delay in filing F the Special Leave PetitionThe petition for permission to nrge additional grounds, except on Constitutional points, shall he treated as having been filed in the S.L.P. These three petitions will be listed before the Division Bench Oil 4-10-1979.

S.R.

(l) [19511 SC. R. 51. (2) [19621 3 S.C.R. 497. (3) [1968! 2 S.C.R. 95.