ABDUL TAIYAB Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by the petitioners for a certificate under Articles 132 and 133 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that in so far as the Notification by the President of India constituting permanent Benches under section 51 (2) of the State, Re -organisation Act is concerned, it involves, a question about the interpretation of Articles 2, 3, 4 and Entry 78, List 1, of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. It is also contended that as regards the decision about the vires of section 51 (2) of the States Reorganisation Act, although the decision is unanimous but still it involves a substantial question of law, and the petitioners are entitled to a certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution of India. As regards the question of locus standi of the petitioners and the question about the jurisdiction of the Benches vis -a -vis the principal seat, it was contended that there being difference of opinion in the judgment of this Court it itself indicates that it involves a substantial question of law of general importance. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Chunnilal V. Mehta v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 1314 and Ahmedabad M/g and Calico Pig, Co. v. Ramtahel AIR 1972 SC 1598. He also placed reliance on the decisions after the amendment of Article 133 of the Constitution on the decisions of the Delhi High Court in Union of India v. Hafiz Mohd. AIR 1975 Delhi 77 FB and New Delhi Municipality v. Stale of A.P AIR 1976 Delhi 1, and the decision of the Supreme Court in State Bank v. N.S. Money AIR 1976 SC 1111 where their Lordships approved the view expressed in Union of India v. Hafiz Mohd (supra), and contended that the petitioners are entitled to a certificate under Articles 132 and 133 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THIS Court. following the decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mangal Singh and another v. Union of India AIR 1967 SC 944 and Keshavanand Bharti v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 146, held that the Parliament, while acting under Articles 2.3 and 4 of the Constitution, was competent to legislate on the subject of reorganisation of the States and. consequently this Court ruled that section 51 (2) of the States Reorganisation Act could not be said to be ultra vires. This Court also in the alternative, held that Entry 78. List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution confers adequate authority on the Parliament to pass an enactment of the kind constituting and organising the High Court The questions decided in this respect are based on the decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court and are questions which are well settled and in our opinion. there is no arguable question which could be said to be a matter deserving a certificate under Article 132 of the Constitution pertaining to the interpretation of the Constitution.