Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. A learned Single Judge of the High Court directed notice to issue to Respondents Nos 1 to 2 in the first Instance to show cause as to why the Petition should not be admitted and the Learned Single Judge further directed that the matter should be listed before a larger Bench for admission. The Learned Single Judge also granted stay of the operation of the order appointing the Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 pending disposal of the admission matter. The matter came up before a Division Bench on 27.2.1982 for admission of the petition and at that time a question was raised as to whether it would be proper for the High Court to hear the Writ Petition since the Court on the administrative side had already taken a decision which forms the basis of the claim of the petitioners in the Writ Petition. On 27.2.1982 after the arguments had been heard at length, the matter was adjourned to 8.3.1982 for further arguments. It appears that on 8.3.1982 when the matter came up for further arguments learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that in fairness and on the grounds of judicial propriety, the High Court might not hear the Writ Petition. It appears that it was submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that they would have no objection to that course being adopted provided a certificate of fitness to file an appeal in the Supreme Court was granted in their favour. It appears that the learned Counsel for the Respondents did not have any objection to the grant of this prayer of the Petitioners. In view of the agreement between the learned Counsel for the parties, the High Court declined to hear the petition on the ground of judicial propriety and vacated the order for stay passed on 27.11.1981; and the High Court granted a certificate of fitness to the Petitioners to file an appeal in the Supreme Court, holding that the point involved in the Writ Petition relating to the interpretation of Art. 109 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir, raises a substantial question of law of general public importance and the case was a fit one in which a certificate of fitness should be granted, Civil Appeal No. 1349 of 1982 is the Appeal filed by the Appellants on the strength of the certificate granted by the High Court.

As certain preliminary objections have been raised, we consider it proper to deal with the same in the first place.

An objection has been taken with regard to the maintainability of Civil Appeal No. 1349 of 1982 filed in this Court with certificate granted by the High Court. It has been urged that this appeal is incompetent as the certificate granted by the High Court is invalid and improper. The argument is that the High Court in its judgment has not decided any point raised in the Writ Petition and the High Court has declined to deal with the matter on the ground of judicial propriety. It is commented that the only decision of the High Court is the refusal on the part of the High Court to hear the Writ Petition on the ground of judicial pro-

600

priety and this decision cannot be the subject matter of a certificate for fitness for filing an appeal in the Supreme Court.

It is on this ground that the State obtained Special Leave from this Court against the judgment of the High Court and Civil Appeal No. 1997 of 1982 has been filed by the State with leave granted by this Court.

It is, no doubt, true that the High Court did not deal with the Writ Petition on its merits as it had been submitted before the High Court on behalf of the Respondents that the High Court should not hear the Writ Petition on the ground of judicial propriety, because the decision taken by the High Court on the administrative side forms the basis of the claim of the Petitioners in the Writ Petition and the Petitioners were agreeable to the course being adopted by the High Court, provided certificate of fitness to file an appeal in the Supreme Court was granted in their favour. The judgment of the High Court records that the counsel for the Respondents had stated that the respondents had no objection to the grant of the said prayer of the Petitioners and the judgment further records that in view of the agreement between the counsel for the parties, the Court granted certificate of fitness to the Petitioners to file an appeal in the Supreme Court while declining to hear the petition on the ground of judicial propriety.

It is true that the High Court while granting the certificate had not gone into the merits of the writ petition, as the High Court had declined to hear the petition on the ground of judicial propriety. It is, however, to be noted that the High Court had adopted the said course as the said course was agreed upon by the learned counsel for the parties. It may also be noted that the High Court in its judgment has pointed out that the interpretation of Art. 109 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir is involved in the writ petition and the said question is a substantial question of law of general public importance. It appears to us to be rather unfortunate that the State should adopt this attitude and should raise these objections particularly after having agreed before the High Court to the certificate being granted. It appears that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the High Court which found it embarrassing to deal with the writ petition particularly in view of the objection raised on behalf of the State on the ground of judicial propriety, granted certificate with the agreement of the parties and declined to hear the matter. We have no doubt in our mind that the question raised in the writ petition is a substantial question of law of general public importance. If on the ground of any technicality, the certificate granted by the High Court can be said to be not a proper one, this Court can always grant special leave in a proper case which deserves to be considered by this Court. We may further note that the High Court while declining to hear the matter on the ground of judicial propriety had also vacated the stay which had been earlier granted by the High Court. The real effect of the order amounts to a virtual refusal to entertain the writ petition. The certificate granted by a High Court in any case after declining to hear the same on any ground may not be appropriate and may not be held to be valid and may have to be revoked. The present case, however, is a fit case, particularly in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and the important question of law of general public importance involved, where this Court should grant special leave to the Petitioners. Accordingly, we revoke the certificate granted by the High Court and we grant special leave to the Petitioners for the filing of this appeal. We treat this appeal as one filed with leave granted by this Court.