9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the "assent" given by the President under Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India is limited to the proposal made by the State Government. 2. Whether the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (P.P. Eviction Act) abridges the rights conferred by Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. 3. Whether the deletion of Article 19(1)(f) by the Constitution 44th Amendment Act, 1978, affects the enforceability of the P.P. Eviction Act. 4. Whether the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, prevails over the P.P. Eviction Act by virtue of Article 254(2) of the Constitution. 5. Whether it is permissible for a Court to enquire into the circumstances in which assent under Article 254(2) was given. Summary: Issue 1: Assent under Article 254(2) The Supreme Court held that the President's assent under Article 254(2) is limited to the proposal made by the State Government. The State legislation would prevail only for the laws for which repugnancy was pointed out and the President's assent was sought. The proposal by the State is sine qua non for 'consideration' and 'assent'. The Court emphasized that the President's consideration and assent are not idle formalities but require active application of mind to the repugnancy between the State law and the earlier law made by the Parliament. Issue 2: Article 19(1)(f) and P.P. Eviction Act The Court held that the P.P. Eviction Act does not abridge the rights conferred by Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The Legislature has the power to prescribe a summary procedure for evicting tenants or unauthorized occupants. The Court noted that the summary procedure under the P.P. Eviction Act is reasonable and in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Issue 3: Deletion of Article 19(1)(f) The learned senior counsel did not press this contention during the hearing, and hence, it was not required to be dealt with further. Issue 4: Bombay Rent Act vs. P.P. Eviction Act The Court held that the Bombay Rent Act does not prevail over the P.P. Eviction Act. The assent of the President was sought for the repugnancy between the Bombay Rent Act and specific Central laws like the Transfer of Property Act and the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, not the P.P. Eviction Act. Therefore, the P.P. Eviction Act would prevail over the Bombay Rent Act. Issue 5: Judicial Review of Assent The Court held that it is permissible to look into the proposals made by the State for obtaining the President's assent to determine whether the assent was given for specific laws. The Court clarified that this does not mean questioning the validity of the assent but merely understanding the scope of the assent given. Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed, and the Court upheld the validity of the P.P. Eviction Act. The writ petitions challenging the vires of certain provisions of the P.P. Eviction Act were also dismissed. The Court emphasized the importance of the President's assent under Article 254(2) and the necessity for the State to clearly specify the repugnancy for which assent is sought.
|
