HASINUDDIN KHAN RAM PYARE Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION:DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -In view of the judgments of this court in (1) State of Bombay v. Narottamdas Jothabai (2) Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Compan) and (3) Ram Adhar Singh v. Ramroop) Singh and in view of the fact that the special leave petition 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 33 of 1972 is unconstitutional. The challenge to these Acts on the ground of their unconstitutionalty is, therefore, rejected. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants have very fairly conceded that position. Accordingly, the Civil and the special leave petition are dismissed. There will be no order as to cost.

(2.) 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 Special Leave Petition in this court will be condoned since the appellants were pursuing their remedy by filing these appeals in this court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant in Civil 543 of 1975 says that the appellant has already filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) 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 condonation of delay in filing the special leave petition. The petition for permission to urge additional grounds, except on constitutional points, shall be treated as having been filed in the SLP. These three petitions will be listed before the division bench on 4/10/1979.