9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether Section 19(c)(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 is ultra vires. 2. Whether a Division Bench can dismiss a petition raising a constitutional validity question at the admission stage. Detailed Analysis: 1. Ultra Vires of Section 19(c)(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960: The petition challenged the constitutional validity of Section 19(c)(2) on two grounds: it offends Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution and suffers from excessive delegation. The Court did not address the merits of these claims directly in this judgment but focused on procedural aspects related to the hearing of such petitions. 2. Jurisdiction of Division Bench at Admission Stage: The primary issue addressed was whether a Division Bench can dismiss a petition challenging the constitutional validity of a State law at the admission stage, in light of Article 228A of the Constitution. Article 228A Interpretation: - Clause (3) of Article 228A: Requires that a minimum of five Judges must sit to determine any question as to the constitutional validity of any State law. - Clause (4) of Article 228A: States that a State law cannot be declared constitutionally invalid unless two-thirds of the Judges sitting for the purpose hold it to be so. - Clause (5) of Article 228A: Emphasizes that these provisions have an overriding effect. Court's Reasoning: - Enquiry at Admission Stage: The Court held that a Division Bench can undertake an enquiry to determine whether the petition raises an arguable question regarding the constitutional validity of a State law. If the question is found to be unarguable, the Division Bench can summarily dismiss the petition. - Definition of "Question": The term "question" under Article 228A must mean a real, arguable question. If the point raised is unsubstantial or self-evident, it does not constitute a "question" requiring determination by a Bench of five Judges. - Administrative Convenience: The Court acknowledged the administrative burden of requiring five Judges to hear every petition raising a constitutional question but emphasized that practical inconvenience cannot override express constitutional provisions. Precedents and Analogies: - Supreme Court Rulings: The Court referred to various Supreme Court rulings, including State of W.B. v. Manmal, AIR 1977 SC 1772, which held that if a question is not substantial or arguable, it need not be referred to a larger Bench. - Income-tax Act Analogies: The Court drew analogies from the practice under the Income-tax Act, where a Tribunal is not required to refer a question to the High Court if it is concluded by a higher court's decision. Majority Opinion: - Determination at Admission Stage: The majority held that a Division Bench can determine at the admission stage whether a petition raises an arguable question of constitutional validity. If it does not, the petition can be dismissed. - Exceptions: A Bench of less than five Judges can dismiss a petition at the admission stage if: - The question is irrelevant. - The question has already been determined by the Supreme Court. - The question has already been determined by a Bench of at least five Judges of the High Court, and no reconsideration is deemed necessary. Dissenting Opinion: - Strict Interpretation: Some judges opined that any question of constitutional validity, regardless of its substance, must be heard by a Bench of five Judges as per the express language of Article 228A. Conclusion: The majority concluded that a Division Bench can dismiss a petition at the admission stage if it does not raise a substantial or arguable question regarding the constitutional validity of a State law. However, if the petition raises an arguable point, it must be referred to a Bench of five Judges for determination.
|
