SUTHAPALLI NAGESWARA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER Article 228-A Clause (3)all that is required is that a Bench of five judges so far as this High Court is concerned has to be constituted for the purpose of determining the validity of a State Law. UNDER Article 228-A (3) it is not required that even for the purpose of admission a Bench of five judges shall be constituted,

(2.) AS regards Rule 14 (c) of the High Court Rules to regulate proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, where a Judge of a Bench of two or more Judges, as the case may be, hearing a writ petition is satisfied that any question as to the validity of any State law is involved or arises for determination in a writ petition, the writ petition shall be referred to a Bench consisting of not less than five judges. The word 'hearing' in this rule obviously refers to a hearing of resulting in final disposal of a writ petition and not to the preliminary hearing involved before rule nisi issued or notice to the other side is issued, because it is obvious that Rule 14 (c) must be so interpreted as to be in confirmity with Rule 228-A (3). Therefore, it is open to a single judge or to a Bench of two or more judges to issue a rule nisi or a notice even in matters where any question as to the validity of any state law is involved or arises for determination. Jf the learned single judge or a Bench of two or more Judges less than five in number is not inclined to issue even a rule nisi and wants to dismiss at the admission stage, if, in that writ petition, any question as to the validity of any State Law is involved or arises for determination, the writ has to be referred to a Bench consisting of not less than five judges. It is only by implying the words 'final hearing' in the word 'hearing' that a workable solution can be found. That is why we arrive at this conclusion particularly as this interpretation brings in the rule in confirmity with the wording of Article 228-A (3).