2002 (3) TMI 909 - SC - Indian Laws

Can the decision of this Court dated 6th February, 1986, upholding the constitutional validity of the Amendment Act of 1971 reversing the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in C.A. Nos. 398 and 1385 of 1972 (State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Venkatagiri and batch), and further indicating that the period during which interim payments are payable under the Act ends with the date of the original determination made by the Director under Section 39(1) of the Act, be held to be a law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution, or it can be said to be per incurium, as contended by Mr. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents? The judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in favour of the respondents passed in Writ Petition Nos. 3293 and 3294 of 1975 not being challenged by way of appeal to the Supreme Court even though it merely followed the earlier decision of the High Court in Venkatgiri s case, whether has conferred an indefeasible right on the respondents notwithstanding the reversal of the judgment of the High Court in Venkatgiri.s case by the Supreme Court? Whether the High Court would be justified in issuing a mandamus in the changed circumstances, namely, Supreme Court reversing the judgment of the High Court in Venkatgiri s case inasmuch as for issuance of a mandamus one of the condition precedent, which is required to be established is that the right subsisted on the date of the petition? Whether the judgment of this Court in Shenoy s case 1985 (4) TMI 66 - SUPREME Court requires any re-consideration? Held that - Our answer to the first question is that the decision of this Court dated 6.2.1986 must be held to be a law declared within the ambit of Article 141 of the Constitution and the constitutional validity of the Amendment Act 1971 is not open to be re-agitated and that the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court holding the Amendment Act to be constitutionally invalid had been set aside by this Court. No indefeasible right on the respondents could be said to have accrued on account of the earlier Judgment in their favour notwithstanding the reversal of the Judgment of the High court in Venkatagiri s case. No hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court committed serious error in issuing the mandamus in question for enforcement of the so-called right which never subsisted on the date, the Court issued the mandamus in view of the decision of this Court in Venkatagiri s case. In our view, therefore, the said conclusion of the High Court must be held to be erroneous. We do not think that a case has been made out for referring the Shenoy s case to a larger Bench for reconsideration. On the other hand, we respectfully agree with the conclusion arrived at by the three Judge Bench of this Court in Shenoy s case. In Shenoy the Court was considering the applicability of Article 141 of the Constitution and its effect on cases, against which no appeals had been filed. A law of the land would govern everybody, and the non-consideration of the principle of res judicata will not be a ground to reconsider the said judgment

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the Amendment Act of 1971.
2. Finality of the Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgment in favor of the respondents.
3. Issuance of mandamus by the High Court in light of the Supreme Court's reversal of the Venkatagiri judgment.
4. Reconsideration of the Shenoy's case judgment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of the Amendment Act of 1971:
The Supreme Court held that the decision dated 6th February 1986, which upheld the constitutional validity of the Amendment Act of 1971 and reversed the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Venkatagiri's case, is a "law declared" under Article 141 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India. The judgment was not merely based on the concession of the counsel but was an independent application of mind by the Court. The Court stated, "We are also of the view that the two amendments referred to above, are constitutionally valid," indicating a conscious decision on the constitutional validity of the Amendment Act.

2. Finality of the Andhra Pradesh High Court's Judgment in Favor of the Respondents:
The respondents argued that the High Court's judgment in their favor, which was not challenged, had reached finality and conferred an indefeasible right on them. However, the Supreme Court noted that the original mandamus in favor of the respondents was based solely on the earlier decision in Venkatagiri's case, which was later reversed by the Supreme Court. The Court held that "no indefeasible right on the respondents could be said to have accrued on account of the earlier judgment in their favor notwithstanding the reversal of the judgment of the High Court in Venkatagiri's case."

3. Issuance of Mandamus by the High Court:
The Supreme Court examined the High Court's power to issue a mandamus and stated that one of the conditions for its issuance is that the aggrieved person must have a subsisting legal right. The Court found that the so-called right of the respondents, which depended on the conclusion that the Amendment Act was constitutionally invalid, could not be sustained after the Supreme Court upheld the Amendment Act's validity. The Court concluded that "the High Court committed serious error in issuing the mandamus in question for enforcement of the so-called right which never subsisted on the date, the Court issued the mandamus in view of the decision of this Court in Venkatagiri's case."

4. Reconsideration of the Shenoy's Case Judgment:
The respondents contended that the Shenoy's case required reconsideration, arguing that it did not consider the principles of res judicata. However, the Supreme Court found no merit in this argument and stated, "we do not think that a case has been made out for referring the Shenoy's case to a larger Bench for reconsideration." The Court agreed with the conclusion in Shenoy's case, emphasizing that "a law of the land would govern everybody, and the non-consideration of the principle of res judicata will not be a ground to reconsider the said judgment."

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, holding that the respondents did not have a subsisting legal right to enforce the earlier mandamus after the Supreme Court had upheld the constitutional validity of the Amendment Act of 1971. The appeal by the State of Andhra Pradesh was allowed.

← Previous Next →