Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 76 (ORI)

Union of India v. Nalini Purohit

2005-01-25

B.P.DAS

body2005
ORDER 25.1.2005 Heard Mr. Bijoy Pal, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. Avijit Pal, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Sisir Das, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. This Leave Petition has been filed under Articles 132,133 and 134-A of the Constitution of India with a prayer to grant certificate under Article 134-A of the Constitution of India for appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment passed by this Court in First Appeal No.70 of 2001 in an application under Sec¬tion 54 of the Land Acquisition Act reducing market value of the acquired land fixed by the reference Court. This judgment was passed on 1st August, 2002. Now the Railway has filed this peti¬tion on the ground that as the land was acquired on its requisi¬tion for the benefit of the Railways, the Railways should have been made a party because it is the person interested and also person aggrieved. This petition has been filed about one year and 43 days after passing of the judgment along with an application ¬for condonation of delay. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that there is no important substantial ques¬tion of law of general importance is involved in this case and that too in the instant case, certificate cannot be granted by reason of Clause-3 of Article 133 of the Constitution of India as the judgment is by the single Judge. In this regard, I may refer to the decision of the apex Court in the case of State Bank of India and another Vs. S.B.I. Employees Union and another reported in AIR 1987 SUPREME COURT 2203. “XXX 3. Clause (3) of Article 133 says that notwithstanding anything in that Article no appeal shall unless Parliament by law otherwise provides lie to the Supreme Court from the judgment, decree or final order of one Judge of the High Court. Before the introduction of Art. 134A of the Constitution by the Forty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution there was no express provi¬sion in Arts. 132, 133 and 134 of the Constitution regarding the time and manner in which an application for a certificate under any of those articles could be made before the High Court. There was also a doubt as to the power of the High Court to issue a certificate suo motu under any of those Articles. 132, 133 and 134 of the Constitution regarding the time and manner in which an application for a certificate under any of those articles could be made before the High Court. There was also a doubt as to the power of the High Court to issue a certificate suo motu under any of those Articles. Article 134-A was enacted to make good the said deficiencies. Article 134-A does not constitute an independent provision under which a cer¬tificate can be issued. It is ancillary to Art.132(1), Art. 133(1) and Art.134(1)(c) of the Constitution. That is the reason for the use of words “if the High Court certifies under Art. 134A” in Art.132(1) and Art.133(1) and for the use of words “certifies under Art.134A” in Art.134(1) 9(c). The High Court can issue a certificate only when it is satisfied that the conditions in Art. 132 or Art.133 or Art.134 of the Constitution as the case may be are satisfied. In the instant case such a certificate could not have been issued by reason of cl.(3) of Art.133 of the Constitution by the learned single Judge.XXX” In view of this, this Court is not inclined to grant the certificate. Accordingly, the Leave Petition is dismissed. Issue urgent certified copy. Petition dismissed.