The Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1949 is not unconstitutional as offending either Art. 19 or Art. 14 of the Constitution.

Judgment

HIDAYATULLAH, J. : On January 11, 1960, the Advocate General applied to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad for action against the appellant Prabhakar Rao H. Malwe under S. 2 of the Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act 1949 (Madras Act VIII of 1949), on the allegation that Mawle had been "habitually and "without any reasonable ground" instituting "vexatious proceedings in the courts within the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and also in the High Court and appearing in the cases in person; that he was responsible for a considerable amount of litigation or, in other words, that he was a vexatious and habitual litigant. In support of the petition for the invocation of the punitive provisions of the Act, the Advocate-General referred to the following cases:

(i) In C.R.P. No. 1765 /58 Mawle described the judgment of the lower court as shocking to the sense of justice, a grave dereliction of duty, flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law and the natural justice, full with errors patent on the face, showing a gross manifest injustice done through the tyrannical arbitrary acts."

It was stated that Mawle apologised to the High Court to escape proceedings for contempt of court.

(ii) He filed a writ petition No. 1369/58 after the above Civil Revision Petition was dismissed and then preferred an appeal CCCA 42/59.

(iii) He filed a stay petition against an intended execution before steps were taken and when the petition was dismissed he filed an appeal C. M. A. 86/59 and obtained stay.

(iv) He filed an appeal against the dismissal of the writ petition 1369/58.

He was thus said to have asked for five remedies in one suit (O. S. 200 of 1958).

(v) In an appeal filed on 3rd June 1959 he did not pay court fee of Rs. 995 as stamps were not available undertaking to pay the balance which he did not pay.

(vi) In S.R. 38516 and S. C. C. M. P. Mawle stated that as he had appeared in person-

without any weightage to his submissions though of law, for in the ends of justice, as against the professional privileges claimed by both these veteran advocates (Mr. O. V. Subbanayadu and Mr. Hari Narayanalal) even though they had taken the role of a party, sole witnesses, swearing false affidavits. . . .

(vii) In S.R. 12409/59 against decree in O.S. 109/1958, though himself the sole defendant, Mawle caused to be preferred an appeal in forma pauperis by his wife and children, getting the judgments under appeal privately printed and certifying them as true.

(viii) C.R.P. No. 1094/59 against the judgment in suit No. 198/2 dismissed against his tenant he filed a revision petition which was dismissed in limine.

(ix) C.R. P. No. 988/1959 filed against I.A. 230/58 in O.S. 99/2 of 1957 of the City Civil Court, Hyderabad was dismissed in limine.

(x) He has filed S. R. 31845/59 as L.P.A. against an order refusing to review C.R.P. against a Small Cause Suit and S.R. No. 27605/59 as a L.P.A. against an order in a petition refusing to condone the delay in filing a review petition in a C. R. P.

(xi) C.R.P. 954/1959 filed against an order in L. R. petition in a Small Cause Suit, originally attempted to be filed as an appeal. C. M. P. 5518 filed and stay ordered on condition that Malwe should deposit the decretal amount. He then withdrew the C. M. P.

(xii) Severa l criminal matters in High Court Complaint in Cr. App. 406/58 and Cr. R. C. 506/59.

(xiii) C. M. P. 1858/57 for taking action against the respondent for alleged contempt of court.

(xiv) S. R. No. 43198/59, a L. P. Appeal.

The Advocate General claimed that though the Act was not extended to the area covered by the former Hyderabad State, it must be treated as the law in force there by reason of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956.

2. Mawle was heard on notice and, as is to be expected from a litigant of his sort, filed a fairly long statement in reply denying each accusation and explaining his conduct. He questioned the jurisdiction of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to take action under the Act as i