PASNURI AMBARAO Vs. LAKHIRAM RAMCHANDRIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appln. For the grant of a certificate to appeal to H. E. H. the Nizam under the Appeals to H. E. H. the Nizam Regulation 1368 F. (XXI [21] of 1358 F ). No amendment has been made in this petn. it is argued on behalf of the paints, that the Dastoor-ul-Amil is still in force, and relying on Article 372 Clause (1) of the Constitution, it is contended that the existing law continues and it does not matter whether the Judicial Committee exists or not. The second contention i9 that the petnrs. ' right to appeal which existed on 25 1. 1950 cannot be impliedly taken away by the Constitution of India being made applicable to the State of Hyderabad.

(2.) ON behalf of the other side it is contended that having regard to the provisions of Article 874

(3.) IN order to appreciate the arguments of the learned Advocates on behalf of the parties, a reference to the petn. and Article 874 (4) of the Constitution and the Firman of H. E. H. the Nizam is necessary. This petn. was filed on 12-12-1949 under the Dastoor. ul-Amal of 1358 P. The Constitution came into force on 26-1-1951. No amendment has been made in the petn. We asked the learned Advocate whether he wished to make any amendment in the petn, He stated before us that he did not wish to make any amendment. H. E. H the Nizam through a Firman dated 23-11-1949 has declared that the provisions of the Constitution shall, as from the date of its commencement, supersede and abrogate all other constitutional provisions inconsistent therewith which are at present in force in the State, Thus, in other words, H. E H. the Nizam accepted the Constitution of India as the Constitution of Hyderabad State. The petn. was filed before this date, but no amendment has been made, and as the Constitution of India has become applicable to Hyderabad, the petn. , as it is, cannot be tenable. The argument is that the Dastoor-ul-Amal is still in force as the existing law. I am afraid I cannot accept this argument.