JUDGMENT This application is directed against a letter dated 23rd March, 1992, whereby the Central Government has refused to give consent certifying in writing for execution of the decree passed against the respondent No. 3 herein who is foreign Ambassador. 2. The petitioner herein was appointed as a commission agent of the respondent No. 3 and while acting as commission agent he has filed a suit against the respondent No. 3 for recovery of his dues. Before the said suit was filed necessary consent was given certifying for filling of the suit against the respondent No. 3 by the Central Government. After the suit was filed the Central Government had purported to revoke the aforesaid consent. The petitioner being the plaintiff in the said suit however challenged the aforesaid order revoking consent by filing a writ petition. Ultimately, the said writ petition was allowed and necessary relief was granted by His Lordship, the Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.L. Jain (as His Lordship then was) by order dated 12th October, 1988. it appears after service of Writ of Summons, the said suit was decree in favour of the petitioner by this Court in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction against the respondent No. 3 for a sum of Rs. 14,60,000/- together with interest thereon @ 6% per annum from 9th July, 1983 upto 15th April, 1987 and thereafter @ 6% per annum on the principal sum till the date of realization of the dues. 3. After the said decree was passed the petitioner being the decree-holder through his learned Lawyer again applied to the Central Government under Section 86(3) of the Civil Procedure Code for giving consent certifying in writing for execution of the said decree. The impugned letter is the rejection of such application and refusal to give consent. 4. As affidavit-in-opposition had been filed by the Union of India but no affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 though the copy of the writ petition has been served. 5. Despite second call nobody appears to oppose this application. Even original affidavit is not to be found in records. 6. Dr. Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, has handed over a copy of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to me. 7. Dr. 5. Despite second call nobody appears to oppose this application. Even original affidavit is not to be found in records. 6. Dr. Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, has handed over a copy of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to me. 7. Dr. Chakraborty submits that the letter of refusal to give consent for execution of the said decree is arbitrary and the same does not spell out any reason. There cannot be any reason or basis for such refusal. He argues that the language of Section 86(3) of the Civil Procedure Code is also pari materia of the language of Section 86(1). He submits that when consent was given to file a suit there is no reason to refusal to give consent for execution of the decree which is the end product of the suit filed on consent given under Section 86(1) of the Civil Procedure Code. He refers to and relies on the decision of the Supreme Court on this subject reported in (1) 1994 (1) SCC 282 . 8. He submits that the object of Section 86 of the Civil Procedure Code is to give foreign State from being harassed by defending suits in which there are hardly any merit. If the foreign State is required to file written statement and to consent the said suit and only at the stage of final disposal, a verdict is given whether in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, such foreign State is entitle to the protection of Section 86 of the Code, the very object and purpose of Section 86 of Civil Procedure Code shall be frustrated. 9. Dr. Chakraborty further argues drawing my attention to the averment in the affidavit-in-opposition that plea taken by the respondent to justify the said refusal in giving consent is that the respondent authorities has followed the decision and ratio of the Supreme Court reported in (2) AIR 1987 SC page 9. He argues that upon perusal of the impugned letter it does not appear that the said judgment has been followed. On the contrary in Paragraph 8 and 9 of the aforesaid judgment it support the case of the petitioner that in the event the suit and/or proceedings is not a mala fide one and in case of a commercial transaction the consent should be given. On the contrary in Paragraph 8 and 9 of the aforesaid judgment it support the case of the petitioner that in the event the suit and/or proceedings is not a mala fide one and in case of a commercial transaction the consent should be given. In any event, the consent can be refused on political grounds. He argued therefore, the aforesaid impugned order is wholly mala fide and refusal to exercise jurisdiction by the Central Government. 10. Since none appears on behalf of the respondents. I had not been benefited to hear the version of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, however, I have gone through the plea taken in the affidavit-in-opposition. I have also seen the impugned letter refusing to give consent. In my view, at the first place upon bare reading of the impugned order, there is not reason at all for refusal. Mere laconic recording of public interest does no give right the Central Government of refuse contest. Moreover, the language of Section 86(3) of the Civil Procedure Code does not spell out any public interest. The other reason being alleged immunity of State under International law does not find place anywhere in the aforesaid Section 86(3) of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, this impugned order does not stand. The same is bound to be and is hereby set aside. But fact remains whether on the facts and circumstances of this case consent for execution of the decree should be certified or not. 11. It is an admitted position suit was filed against the same respondent after obtaining necessary content, and decree was also passed subsequently. Following the ratio of the Supreme Court decision reported in 1994 (1) SCC 282 , I hold that consent can be withhold only in case where there is a mala fide, vexatious and frivolous claims are sought to be made against the foreign embassies. In order to give protection against as above the provision for obtaining consent has been made so that the nature of the claim can be screened and/or filtered upon scrutiny or examination by the Central Government. When such scrutiny had already been undertaken by giving consent to file a suit, further scrutiny in this case is immaterial. The decree has been passed and this decree is still valid and subsisting and upon perusal of this decree, the same appears to me is executable. When such scrutiny had already been undertaken by giving consent to file a suit, further scrutiny in this case is immaterial. The decree has been passed and this decree is still valid and subsisting and upon perusal of this decree, the same appears to me is executable. It does not suffer any jurisdictional defect. Therefore, under no stretch of imagination it can be said that the decreetal claim of the petitioner is frivolous or vexatious one. The same principle should be governed in case of granting consent is certifying execution of the decree as it is applicable in case of giving consent for filing a suit, since the language of sub-section (3) of Section 86 almost identically same as that of the language of sub-section (I) of Section 86. 12. Under such facts and circumstances, of this case, I hold that in this case the Central Government ought to have given consent under Section 86(3) of the Civil Procedure Code and not doing so the Central Government has filed to exercise its duty coupled with power as enshrined therein. So, I direct the Minister of External Affairs, Union of India to given consent in writing certifying execution of the aforesaid decree. 13. Thus, this writ petition is allowed. 14. There will be no order as to costs. 15. This consent in writing should be given in terms of my judgment and order preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of completion of the order. All parties are to act on a xerox signed copy of the operative portion of this judgment.