9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the Mysore Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. 2. Allegation of the Act being a piece of colourable legislation. 3. Applicability of the Madras Revenue Board's Standing Orders to the district of South Kanara. Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutional Validity of the Mysore Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 The appeals questioned the constitutional validity of the Mysore Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, which was enacted to abolish hereditary village offices and the emoluments attached to them. The Act received the President's assent on July 8, 1961, and came into force on February 1, 1963. The Act aimed to abolish hereditary village offices such as patels, shanbhogs, and village karnams, and replace them with positions filled through recruitment by the State Government. The Act's preamble states its purpose: "to abolish the village offices which were held hereditarily before the commencement of the Constitution and the emoluments appertaining thereto in the State of Mysore and to provide for matters consequential and incidental thereto." 2. Allegation of the Act Being a Piece of Colourable Legislation The appellants argued that the Act was a piece of colourable legislation, asserting that it purported to abolish hereditary offices but, in reality, aimed to remove current incumbents to appoint new individuals chosen by the State Government. They relied on the Mysore General Services Rules (Revenue Subordinate Branch) Village Accountants (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 1961, to support their contention. The court referred to the doctrine of colourable legislation, which involves examining whether the legislature has overstepped its constitutional powers by disguising its true intent. The court cited K. C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa, which clarified that the doctrine does not concern the legislature's motives but its competency to enact a law. The court also referenced G. Nageswara Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, emphasizing that the legislature cannot overstep its field of competency, directly or indirectly. Upon examining the Act's provisions, the court found that its objective was to abolish hereditary village offices and their emoluments, aligning with the principle established in Dasaratha Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which held that laws making discrimination based on descent were violative of fundamental rights under Article 16(2) of the Constitution. The court concluded that the Act was not a piece of colourable legislation, as it genuinely aimed to abolish hereditary offices and create stipendiary posts with different qualifications and conditions of service. 3. Applicability of the Madras Revenue Board's Standing Orders to the District of South Kanara In Civil Appeal No. 190 of 1965, the appellants argued that the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act, 1895, did not apply to the district of South Kanara, and appointments were governed by the Madras Revenue Board's Standing Orders. They contended that the post of Karnam was a civil post under Article 311, and its abolition amounted to "removal" within the meaning of that article. The court acknowledged that the Madras Village Offices Act, 1895, did not apply to South Kanara but noted that the hereditary principle was observed in practice through the Madras Revenue Board's Standing Orders. The court cited various standing orders that emphasized the hereditary principle in appointing village officials in South Kanara. The court concluded that the principle of heredity applied to the appointments of shanbhogs in South Kanara, and the abolition of hereditary offices under the impugned Act was consistent with the principle established in Dasaratha Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh. Conclusion The court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Mysore Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, was constitutionally valid and not a piece of colourable legislation. The Act genuinely aimed to abolish hereditary village offices and create new stipendiary posts, aligning with constitutional principles and previous judicial decisions. The appeals were dismissed with costs, including one hearing fee.
|
