STANDARD VACUUM OIL CO Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, the Standard Vacuum Oil Company, wants to appeal to the Supreme Court from an order passed by Sinha, J., whereby he discharged a Rule nisi issued by himself at the instance of the petitioner upon an application made under Article 226 of the Constitution. The prayer in the petition is that 'if necessary', a certificate be granted in terms which appear to be the terms contemplated by both Article 132 and Article 133.

(2.) It appears that a certificate under Article 132 has already been granted by the learned trial Judge himself by an observation made by him at the end of his Judgment. He has certified that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. No particular form is required for a certificate under Article 132. It is also well settled that on questions covered by Article 132, an appeal lies directly to the Supreme Court from the decision of even one learned Judge sitting singly, if he gives the necessary certificate. The prayer in the present petition for a certificate that the proposed appeal involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution appears to be misconceived and a surplus age.

(3.) There is, however, a prayer for a certificate which would seem to be a certificate of the kind contemplated by Article 133. The grounds which are intended to be taken in the proposed appeal are set out in para. 16 of the petition and at least one of them, namely, ground (d), does not seem to have any concern with the interpretation of the Constitution. The proposed, appeal, therefore, is intended to cover grounds contemplated by Article 132 and also other grounds which are outside the ambit of that Article. It need hardly be said that the latter grounds would not be covered by the certificate granted by the learned trial Judge under Article 132 and, therefore, the first question which arises is whether a further certificate from this Court is required in order to enable the petitioner to take before the Supreme Court grounds oilier than those covered by Article 132.