1961 (12) TMI 81 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether s. 4 of Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 Orissa (XXXIII of 1950) offends the equality before law guaranteed by Art. 14? Whether s. 5(1) is invalid? Whether the Governor was not competent to issue an Ordinance with a view to over-ride the judgment delivered by the High Court in its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution? Whether the Ordinance having lapsed on April 1st 1959, the appeals themselves have become infructuous? Held that - We do not think there is any substance in the alternative argument urged in support of the plea that s. 4 is ineffective even if it does not contravene Art, 14. We do not think that the High Court was justified in holding that s. 5(1) was void to the extent of its repugnancy to the existing laws dealing with matters in the Concurrent List. There is no repugnancy to any existing laws and so, there is no contravention of Art. 254(2) of the Constitution at all. It is true that the judgment delivered by the High Court under Art.226 must be respected but that is not to say that the Legislature is incompetent to deal with problems raised by the said judgment if the said problems and their proposed solutions are otherwise within their legislative competence. It would, we think, be erroneous to equate the judgment of the High Court under Art. 226 with Art 226 itself and confer upon it all the attributes of the said constitutional provision. The Ordinance has in terms provided that the Order of Court declaring the elections to the Cuttack Municipality to be invalid shall be deemed to be and always to have been of no legal effect whatever and that the said elections are thereby validated. That being so, the said elections must be deemed to have been validly held under the Act and the life of the newly elected Municipality would be governed by the relevant provisions of the Act and would not come to an end as soon as the Ordinance expires. Therefore, we do not think that the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Chetty against the competence of the appeals can be upheld. Appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Sections 4 and 5(1) of Orissa Ordinance I of 1959.
2. Alleged contravention of Article 14 (Equality before Law).
3. Validity of elections to the Cuttack Municipality.
4. Impact of the expiration of the Ordinance on the validity of the elections.
5. Legislative competence of the Governor in issuing the Ordinance.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Sections 4 and 5(1) of Orissa Ordinance I of 1959:
The Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of Sections 4 and 5(1) of the Orissa Ordinance I of 1959, which were struck down by the High Court of Orissa. The Ordinance was promulgated to validate the electoral rolls and elections to the Cuttack Municipality and other municipalities in Orissa, which had been declared invalid by the High Court. The Supreme Court found that the Ordinance was a legitimate exercise of legislative power by the Governor under Article 213(1) of the Constitution.

2. Alleged Contravention of Article 14 (Equality before Law):
The High Court held that Section 4 of the Ordinance contravened Article 14 by discriminating against Mr. Bose, who had successfully challenged the elections. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that Sections 3 and 4 of the Ordinance must be read together. The Ordinance aimed to address the broader issue of validating elections across multiple municipalities, not just the Cuttack Municipality. The Supreme Court concluded that the Ordinance did not single out Mr. Bose for discriminatory treatment and thus did not violate Article 14.

3. Validity of Elections to the Cuttack Municipality:
The High Court found that the abridgment of the period for filing claims and objections and the period for canvassing had materially affected the election results. The Supreme Court held that the Ordinance's purpose was to validate the electoral rolls and elections, thereby curing the identified irregularities. Consequently, the Supreme Court found that the Ordinance effectively validated the elections, and no further provisions were necessary to address the High Court's findings of material prejudice.

4. Impact of the Expiration of the Ordinance on the Validity of the Elections:
Mr. Chetty argued that the appeals were infructuous because the Ordinance had lapsed, reviving the invalidity of the Cuttack Municipal elections. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the validation of the elections was intended to be permanent. The rights created by the Ordinance, similar to those in the case of Steavenson v. Oliver, were enduring and lasted beyond the expiration of the Ordinance. Therefore, the validation of the elections continued to be effective even after the Ordinance lapsed.

5. Legislative Competence of the Governor in Issuing the Ordinance:
The Supreme Court addressed the argument that the Governor was not competent to issue an Ordinance overriding a High Court judgment under Article 226. The Court clarified that while the judgment under Article 226 must be respected, the Legislature (or Governor in this case) is competent to address the issues raised by the judgment if within their legislative competence. The Court emphasized that equating a High Court judgment with a constitutional provision is erroneous.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed Mr. Bose's writ petition. The Court upheld the constitutionality of Sections 4 and 5(1) of the Ordinance, validated the elections to the Cuttack Municipality, and confirmed that the validation continued beyond the expiration of the Ordinance. The Supreme Court's judgment reinforced the legislative competence of the Governor in promulgating the Ordinance to address the broader public interest.

← Previous Next →