( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 133 of the Constitution praying for the grant of a certificate that the case is a fit one, for appeal to the Supreme Court of India. It arises under the following circumstances.

( 2 ) THE parties to the application were candidates for election to a seat in the U. P. Legislative assembly. As a result of the poll the respondent obtained 25,933 votes and the applicant 25,258 votes. The respondent was accordingly declared as the duly elected candidate, and the applicant filed an election petition challenging the respondents election. The main grounds taken in the petition were that the respondent, his workers, agents and supporters made systematic appeals, held meetings and printed and distributed handbills to the Muslim voters of the constituency inducing them to vote for the respondent and refrain from voting for the applicant on the ground of community and religion; that the respondent), his agents, workers and supporters made extensive use of certain posters bearing the photograph of Mahatma Gandhi and his advice "congress ko tor do" (the Congress organisation should he dissolved) and thus made the use of a national symbol for the purpose of reducing the votes of the applicant and increasing those of the respondent; and that the respondent did not maintain accounts, as required by Section 77 of the representation of the People Act.

( 3 ) THE Election Tribunal held that the respondent was guilty of the commission of the corrupt practice of making systematic appeals to the Muslim voters to vote for the respondent on the ground of his community and religion, that the voters were made to believe that they would become objects of Divine displeasure and spiritual censure if they did not vote for the respondent, and that a pamphlet styled "kya is Congress ko phir vote diya jave" (should votes be cast in favour of the Congress candidate again) contained false statements and misrepresentations and preached hatred against the members of the Congress organisation and interfered with the free exercise of the electoral right of the voters. The points raising other grounds were decided against the applicant, but the election of the respondent was declared to be void on the findings mentioned above, The respondent filed an anpeal in this Court and this Court did not agree with the Election Tribunal in its decision on any of the points decided by it against the respondent and allowed the appeal. This Court agreed with the decision of the Tribunal with respect to the points which were decided by the Tribunal in favour of the respondent, and the correctness of which was challenged in appeal before the Court. The applicant now wants to take the case to the supreme Court.

( 4 ) NO arguments were addressed to us at the time of the hearing of the application that the applicant was entitled to a certificate under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-Article (1) of Article 133 of the Constitution, though the application mentioned those clauses also. The reason for this appears to be that this is not a case in which it can be said that the amount or value of the subject-matter in dispute in the court of first instance and in dispute on appeal was Rs. 20,000/or more. Even in the application it is nowhere alleged that the value of the subject-matter in dispute was Rs. 20,000/ -. During the argument the learned counsel only urged that the case raised questions of general and public importance and was a fit one for appeal to file Supreme court. We thus proceeded to consider whether the applicant is entitled to a certificate under article 183 (1) (c) of the Constitution, which is as follows: "an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order in a civil proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court certifies (A ). . . . . (B ). . . . . (C) that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court of India;

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent has