V.V. Giri vs Dippala Suri Dora and others

Manohar Pershad, J.—This is a petition on behalf of Sri V. V for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court Arts. 132 and 133 of the Constitution of India.

Under Art. 132 of the Constitution India, an appeal shall lie to the Supreme from any judgment, decree or final order of a Court in the territory of India, whether in a Criminal or other proceedings, if this Court (sic) that the case involves a substantial question (sic) as to the interpretation of the Constitution.

In the petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, the petitioner has only challenging vires of certain sections of the Representation People Act and that S. 54, Cl. (4) of the sa(sic) offends Arts. 14 and 15 read with Arts. 81, (sic) 330 of the Constitution. In other words, the petitioner has not alleged that there is any question the interpretation of any of the Articles of the substitution.

It is only when the questions of law in(sic)relate to the interpretation of the Articles Constitution that the petitioner could get (sic) (sic)ficate under this Article. Learned counsel petitioner very rightly conceded that there question of interpretation of Arts. 14 and involved in this petition, but only application (sic) Articles.

When there is no question of any interpretation any of the Articles of the Constitution, mere application of these Articles would not entitle the petitioner to a certificate under this Article. It is no doubt true that there are certain questions of law involved in this petition which relate to the vires of (sic)ne of the sections of the Representation of the People Act, but that would not be enough to en(sic)le the petitioner for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 132 (1).

Now, we have to see whether the petitioner entitled to leave under Article 133 of the Constitution of India.

Article 133 (1) reads thus:

An appeal shall he to the Supreme Court from '' judgment, decree or final order in a civil providing of a High Court in the territory of India the High Court certifies-

(a) that the amount or value of the subject-matter of the dispute in the court of first instance still in dispute on appeal was and is not less (sic) twenty thousand rupees or such other sum as be specified in that behalf by Parliament by or

(b) that the judgment, decree or final order in(sic)es directly or indirectly some claim or question (sic)ecting property of the like amount of value; or

(c) that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court

It would follow, therefore, that, in order the petitioner is entitled to get a certificate (sic) this Article, he has got to satisfy this Court the judgment of this Court in appeal was an arising in a Civil proceeding. There is no (sic)tion of ''Civil proceeding'' in the Constitution expression used in Article 133 (1) is ''Civil Proceeding'' and not the expression ''Civil cause'' or (sic). The dictionary meaning of ''Civil Proceeding'' given in Stroud''s Judicial Dictionary is:

Civil proceeding: is a process for the recovery dividual right or redress of individual wrong; (sic)ive, in its proper legal sense, of suits by the (sic). (sic)ter gives the definition of ''civil proceeding'' or (sic) action'' to mean an action, suit or proceeding (sic)rce the private rights or redress the private (sic)s of an individual, i.e., one not involving a (sic)al proceeding. The dictionary meaning does (sic)ke the matter any further. Ordinarily ''civil Proceedings'' are proceedings relating to right to (sic)ty status of a person or right to an office. ''Civil Proceeding'' means in the ordinary sense, the form (sic)ch action is brought or defended. The right (sic)tion is a creature of the Statute. It is not a (sic) to property or relating to any status (sic)ot a right vested in one person with the (sic) the other to obey the right. It is also not which could be enforced in a Court of law. (sic) it is not a right which could be enforced in (sic)t of law and which does not create an obli(sic)on the other party and does not vest any (sic) the petitioner, it cannot be deemed to be right.

(sic) the case of N.P. Ponnusami v. Returning Namakkal Constituency, Salem District, AIR (sic)C 64 (A), which was also a case of an elec(sic)e question had arisen whether the right to stand as a candidate for election was a civil right. It was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the right to vote or stand as a candidate for election was not a civil right, but was the creature of Statute or special law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also could not satisfy us that the instant case was a case of a civil nature. In the instant case the petitioner was one of the candidates for election in 1957 along with three other candidates. The Returning Officer declared Shri Dippala Suri Dora, respondent (sic) herein as elected. Against that decision of the Returning Officer, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal, where his appeal was allowed and the declaration made by the Returning Officer that Shri Dippala Suri Dora was elected, was declared void.

Shri Dippala Suri Dora filed an appeal against that order to this Court, which was allowed. The question involved was whether the respondent could be declared as elected. There is no question of any right to property or status. We are therefore definite that this is not a case arising in a civil proceeding.

In this view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled to leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, under Article 133 (1) of the Constitution also.

The petition is therefore dismissed with costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 100/-.