2011 (8) TMI 1094 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the plaintiff may be given an opportunity to put forth its stand that the Central Government issued impugned Notifications/Orders without proper guidelines and affording opportunity to the parties concerned?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Sections 58(3) and 58(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2000.
2. Amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
3. Jurisdiction under Article 131 of the Constitution of India.
4. Delay and laches in filing the amendment application.
5. Impact of the proposed amendment on the nature and character of the original suit.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Sections 58(3) and 58(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2000:
The plaintiff-State of Madhya Pradesh challenged the constitutionality of Sections 58(3) and 58(4) of the MPR Act, claiming these sections provide unguided powers to the Central Government for apportioning assets, rights, and liabilities between the successor states without any guidelines, thus violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The plaintiff argued that this lack of guidelines resulted in arbitrary and unjust decisions, leading to an unequal division of generating capacity and financial disparities.

2. Amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
The plaintiff filed I.A. No. 4 of 2009 seeking to amend the plaint to include a challenge to the constitutionality of Sections 58(3) and 58(4) of the MPR Act. Order VI Rule 17 allows for amendments to pleadings at any stage of the proceedings to determine the real questions in controversy. The Court highlighted that amendments should be allowed if they are necessary for resolving the real controversy, provided they do not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side.

3. Jurisdiction under Article 131 of the Constitution of India:
The second defendant, State of Chhattisgarh, contended that the validity of a Central law cannot be challenged under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 131. Normally, such questions should be raised under the writ jurisdictions of Articles 32 and 226. The Court noted that Article 131A, which provided exclusive jurisdiction to the Supreme Court for questions of constitutionality of Central laws, was omitted by the 43rd Amendment, allowing these questions to be raised in High Courts and the Supreme Court under writ jurisdictions.

4. Delay and laches in filing the amendment application:
The second defendant argued that the amendment application was filed belatedly, as the suit had been pending since 2004 and the issues were framed in 2007. The Court acknowledged that the plaintiff did not provide reasons for the delay in seeking the amendment. It was noted that the pleadings were complete, evidence by way of affidavits had been filed, and the suit was ready for final hearing, making the timing of the amendment application questionable.

5. Impact of the proposed amendment on the nature and character of the original suit:
The Court observed that the original suit challenged the manner of exercise of power by the Central Government under Sections 58(3) and 58(4) of the MPR Act, not the constitutionality of these sections. Allowing the amendment to challenge the vires of the provisions would fundamentally alter the nature of the suit and render the original claims infructuous. The Court emphasized that amendments introducing a totally different, new, and inconsistent case or challenging the fundamental character of the suit should be refused.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the plaintiff-State of Madhya Pradesh could not amend the plaint to challenge the constitutionality of Sections 58(3) and 58(4) of the MPR Act at this stage, as it would fundamentally alter the nature of the original suit. However, the plaintiff was permitted to raise objections regarding the lack of guidelines and the arbitrary nature of the Central Government's actions during the trial. I.A. No. 4 of 2009 was disposed of with no order as to costs.