The High Court has the jurisdiction to make an order under the Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1949, in respect of litigants residing in the Telangana area, and the Act is not unconstitutional as it does not deprive a citizen of the right to seek redress but only requires them to obtain leave before instituting proceedings.

SATYANARAYANA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition "under the provisions of the Vexatious, litigation (Prevention) Act, 1949 (Madras Act VIII of 1949), hereinafter referred to as the Act.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the Advocate-General of Andhra Pradesh. The respondent p. H. Mowle, aged about 45 years, is a businessman and resident of Hyderabad. It is. averred by the Advocate-General that the respondent has been, habitually and without any reasonable grounds, instituting vexatious proceedings in Courts situated at hyderabad and Secunderabad and also in the High Court, all of which he is conducting in person. It is stated that he has been responsible for considerable amount of litigation. The Advocate-General has filed a long list of proceedings instituted by the respondent. He prays that an order may be made that the respondent shall not institute any proceedings, civil or criminal, (a) in the High Court without the leave of that Court, (b) in any Court in the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad without the leave of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, and (c) in any Court elsewhere in the State without the leave of the District Judge of the concerned district; and that the order to be made under section 2 (1) of the Act may be directed to be published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette.

( 3 ) THE respondent has filed a lengthy counter wherein he has raised the following contentions :- (1) That the Act cannot be invoked against him as its provisions have not been extended to the area comprised in the former State of Hyderabad ; (2) That the Act is unconstitutional as it abridges the rights of a citizen to seek redress in a Court of law ; and (3) That, on the merits, there is no ground for invoking the provisions of the Act against him. The Act is entitled an Act to prevent the institution of vexatious proceedings in Courts. The material provisions of the Act read as follows :-"section a.- (1) If, on an application made by the Advocate-General, the High Court is satisfied that any person has habitually and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious proceedings, civil or criminal, in any Court or Courts, the High Court may, after giving that person an opportunity of being heard, order that no proceedings, civil or criminal, shall be instituted by him in any Court (2) If it appears to the High Court that the person against whom an application is made under sub-section (1) is unable, on account of poverty, to engage a pleader, the High Court may engage a pleader to appear for him. Explanation. -. . . . . . Section 3.-The leave referred to in section a, sub-section (1), shall not be given in respect of any proceedings unless the High Court, or, as the case may be, District and Sessions Judge, is satisfied that there is prima facie ground for such proceedings. "

( 4 ) UNDER the provisions of this Act, if the Advocate-General satisfies the High court that any person has habitually and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious proceedings, civil or criminal, in any Court or Courts, the High Court may by order, direct that no proceedings shall be instituted by that person unless he first obtains the leave of the High Court or the Court of the District and sessions Judge concerned after showing that there is prima facie ground for such proceeding.

( 5 ) IT is contended by the respondent that the operation of the Act not having been extended to the territories comprised in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad, its provisions cannot be invoked for the purpose of obtaining an order against him. The learned Advocate-General maintains that the Act is part of the regulatory jurisdiction vested in the Madras High Court which has been inherited by this Court and that, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to make an order as contemplated by the Act in respect of litigants within its jurisdiction. These contentions raise the larger issue of the jurisdiction of the High Court of andhra Pradesh, and it is necessary, therefore, to trace the histo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document