Report No. 58
3.27. In a very early case,1 the State Government had provided, to displaced persons, some 'abadi' land and agricultural land in a village Goran to the newcomers (refugees), who were not welcome to the old residents. This created some tension and hatred between the two groups. There were many complaints made to the district authorities. But they did not take any interest in settling the matter.
1. Baloodin v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1956 SC 181 (Bose, Jagannadhadas and Sinha JJ.).
3.28. On 7th February, 1954, the group of old residents attacked the newcomers at Mangal Singh's house armed with axes, spear and guns, etc. and shot down six male members of the refugees. The High Court convicted the appellants, but granted a certificate of appeal to the Supreme Court.
3.29. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not grant a certificate as a matter of course, but it must exercise its discretion judicially under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. The High Court must apply its mind and give reasons for the order. The important question of law must also be apparent on the face of the order.
3.30. In this case, the High Court had granted a certificate by simply stating in the last line of the judgment "leave to appeal to Supreme Court is granted." On the course adopted by the High Court, the Supreme Court commented: "We have seen that neither it has shown any important question of law, nor certified the case as a fit case for appeal. Therefore, it has exercised its power mechanically and not judicially."
3.31. In another ease1 the Supreme Court has said, "It is manifest that before granting a certificate under sub-clause (c), the High Court must be satisfied that it involves some substantial question of law or principle."
1. State of Assam v. Abdul Noor, AIR 1970 SC 1365, para. 7.