1. These three Criminal (Misc.) Petitions (Nos. 13, 14 and 15 of 1954) have been argued together. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has presented these applications under Article 134 of the Constitution. It is, however, conceded that proceedings under the Legal Practitioners Act are only quasi criminal in character. I am of the view that Article 134 applies only to criminal proceedings and not to proceedings under the Legal Practitioners Act which are more administrative in characterand concern merely the maintenance of the dis cipline among the officers of the Court. I am in clined to the view that Article 134 does not refer to such proceedings,
2. The learned Counsel has suggested that al proceedings must fall either within the purview of Article 133 or Article 134. I am unable to agree. Then are many proceedings like the proceedings before the Election Tribunals which are not within the purview of either Article 133 or 134. In such cases, the remedy lies in applying direct for special leave under Article 136, and the petitioner does not suffer any disadvantage merely because the proceedings are not covered by the provisions of Article 133 and 134 of the Constitution.
3. Assuming that the provisions of Article 134 would apply to the proceedings in question, the learned Counsel has to satisfy me that he is entitled to a certificate that the cases are fit for an appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. I may refer to : AIR1952All630 . Then, it was held that under Article 134(1)(c), a certificate should be granted only in exceptional cases (1) where injustice of a serious nature or character has occurred because of an error in procedure which is of so grave a character as deprives the accused of a constitutional or statutory right to be tried in a particular way, or (2) the error has been carried to such an extent as to cause the outcome of the proceedings to be contrary to fundamental principles which justice requires to be observed, or (3) there has been some disregard of legal principles or natural justice or 4. where the law upon a material point is in doubt or has been differently interpreted by the various High Courts in India.
The learned Counsel has not brought his cases in any of these four classes. The contention of the learned Counsel is that the case is of great public importance and therefore no other qualification need be fulfilled. The learned Counsel has not referred me to any authority in support of his contention. In view of - 'Kali Prasad v. The State' : AIR1952All630 with which I respectfully agree, I am unable to hold that the petitioner is en-titled to a certificate merely because the case is of great public or private importance.
4. No other point has been pressed before me.
5. I therefore, see no force in these petitions and dismiss them summarily.