Janardhan Reddy and Others vs State and Others

Siddiqi, J.—Parties heard. The able Advocate for the applicants seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court submits that his application for the issue of a writ was based on matters not only covered by the decision of the High Court but also in respect of other matters such as obtaining the sanction of H. E. H. the Nizam for the carrying out of the sentences and also with regard to the manner in which the sentences are to be carried out. He submits that in Hyderabad in execution of death sentences the practice formerly was to sever the head from the shoulders and the order of the High Court has described the mode of carrying out the sentence by ''hanging until he be dead''. The Advocate General in reply to the arguments of the able Advocate for the Petitioners says that he believes that the sentences will be submitted to H. E. H. the Nizam for his sanction but that he can only make a binding statement in this regard after consulting the Government as the legal position has to be examined by Government. With regard to the other matters of any consequence raised, the Advocate General submits that all these are covered'' expressly or by necessary implication by the High Court judgment.

As I am rejecting the application for leave to appeal to Supreme Court, the learned Advocate for the Petitioners requests that I should mention this fact in my order that the order of the Admission Judge u/s 4, Clause 3 of the Hyderabad High Court Act is not appealable in the sense that no appeal from the order of the Admission Judge lies to any of the benches of this High Court. That statement is correct. The order is not so appealable.

The application for issue of a writ has come before me u/s 4 Clause 3 of the Hyderabad High Court Act for admission and I have rejected it under the provisions of Clause 3 as the application was infructuous and the case attempted to be made had no prima facie merits. The order was:

This High Court has finally decided the appeal. The Supreme Court has refused to grant leave. After a final decision of the High Court, there is no right in the subject to be protected under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the Petitioner can open the decision of the High Court in some appropriate proceedings, he may do so. The application is misconceived and is, therefore, rejected. This order will govern connected applications.

The above order refers equally to the procedure adopted. I see no effective substantial question of law (as to the interpretation of the Constitution) involved and no special ground has been made out under Articles 132 and 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India. I, therefore, reject this application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.