Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 281 (GAU)

DEBASISH BISWAS v. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

2014-03-10

A.K.GOSWAMI, A.M.SAPRE

body2014
JUDGMENT A.M. Sapre, J. Heard Mr. A.S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the applicant. This is an application made by the appellant of Writ Appeal No.43 of 2013 under Article 134A of the Constitution of India seeking certificate for filing an appeal before the Supreme Court of India against the judgment and order dated 23.04.2013 passed in Review Petition No.54 of 2013 which, in turn, arose out of the main order of the Division Bench dated 18.02.2013 passed in Writ Appeal No.43 of 2013. We have perused the main order dated 18.02.2013 passed by the Division Bench consisting of the then Chief Justice (Mr. Justice A.K. Goel) and Mr. Justice A.K. Goswami and also the order passed in review petition filed against the said order which resulted in partly allowing the review petition to the extent indicated therein. Having perused the aforesaid two orders i.e. the order passed in writ appeal and the review, we are afraid, we can entertain this application for more than one reasons. In the first place, the petition filed by the appellant under Article 134A does not appear to be maintainable for the simple reason that no oral prayer as contemplated by Article 134A(b) ibid was made by the applicant immediately after passing of the said orders in appeal or in review petition. Secondly, in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 134A, it is necessary for the applicant to make the oral prayer immediately after passing of the order to the same Bench. Thirdly, since admittedly the applicant did not do so and now has made an application invoking our power under Article 134A, the same is not permissible in law inasmuch as Article 134A does not enable the applicant to make an application of this kind for seeking certification for appeal to the Supreme Court, at such belated stage. In any event, having perused the order passed by the appellate Court and the review Court, we find absolutely no ground to grant certification for filing an appeal before the Supreme Court of India as in our opinion it does not involve any substantial question of law much less of public importance which may persuade us to grant any certification. The remedy of applicant, if any, would lie in filing a special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution against the aforementioned two orders. The remedy of applicant, if any, would lie in filing a special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution against the aforementioned two orders. Subject to this observation, the application made by the applicant under Article 134A of the Constitution of India fails and is hereby dismissed in limini. No cost.