G D SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application the contermner prays through Mr. V.K. Khajuria, who is his surety as also his Advocate, that the order dated March 23, be stayed and sufficient time be granted to him to file special leave the Honble Supreme Court. The application is purported to have been made under Rule 174 of the J&K High Court Rules, 1975 for staying the operation of Courts order dated March 23,1988. In para 3 of the application the applicant has stated that he intends to challenge the validity of the said order by filing an appeal (SLP) in the Honble Supreme Court at New Delhi and he submits that it will be in the interests of justice to stay the said order. Rule 174 reads as under: - " 174 (1) On the applicant executing a bond with or without sureties undertaking to lodge an appeal in the Court within the prescribed time, the court may ; i) Order that the execution of the sentence or order be suspended; of ii) where the applicant is in confinement, admit him to bail on such terms as the court may think fit pending pending the disposal of the application or where the requisite certificate is granted pending the lodging of an appeal in the Supreme Court. Provided that where the application is by the Government, no such bond shall be required before an order under this Rule is made.

(2.) BEFORE this Rule comes into play compliance of Rule 173 is to be made by a person who is desirous of seeking permission of this Court. Rule 173 (2) reads as under: - " The petition shall state succinctly and clearly such facts as may be necessary to be stated in order to enable ,the court to determine whether such certificate ought to be granted and shall be signed by the applicant or his Advocate. " Rule 173 (3) empowers the Court to admit the application or to reject it. The rejection is to be ordered if there is npv sufficient reason to admit the application or if compliance with Rule 173 (2) is not borne out from the application.

(3.) FROM a combined reading of the aforesaid provision of J&K High Court Rules, it emerges that before the application is considered by the court the petitioner has to state substantively and clearly the facts which are necessary to be stated in order to enable this court to determine whether such certificate ought to be granted. If there is no sufficient cause shown the Court is vested with the power to reject the application. The Rules take care that order of grant of permission to file a S.L.P. before the Honble Supreme Court is based on material, which in the opinion of the court, is sufficient to determine the question of grant of certificate. That would mean that the petitioner has to show some constitutional invalidity in the order of March 23,1988 which needs to be determined by the Honble Supreme Court. Without showing as to in what manner the order dated March 23,1988 is bad, this court cannot mechanically grant the certificate to the contemner for filing S.L.P in the Supreme Court. The case which are to be brought before the Honble Supreme Court must necessarily involve substantial questions of constitutional importance or which have some public importance. None of the condition is fulfilled by the contemner in his application. Therefore, we are unable tp accept this application and we decline him certificate to approach the Honâ„¢ble Supreme Court. The certificate which is to be granted for approaching the Honble Supreme Court has to be granted on the conditions which are relevant for Art.132 and 134 of the constitution of India None of the conditions of those articles are satisfied.