1962 (3) TMI 104 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Proper construction of Section 5A of the Bihar Private Irrigation Works Act, 1922.
2. Legality of demands for contribution made on landlords under Section 11 of the Act.
3. Compliance with statutory requirements under Section 5A.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
5. Estoppel and acquiescence by the landlords.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Proper Construction of Section 5A of the Bihar Private Irrigation Works Act, 1922:
The core issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 5A, which was introduced by an amendment in 1939. Section 5A allows the Collector to bypass the usual notice and inquiry process required under Sections 3 to 5 if there is an urgent need for repair of an irrigation work. The Collector must record reasons for such urgency. The Supreme Court emphasized that the requirement to record reasons is mandatory and not merely directory. This ensures that the Collector's decision to bypass the regular process is justified and transparent.

2. Legality of Demands for Contribution Made on Landlords under Section 11 of the Act:
The demands for contribution were based on orders issued under Section 5A. The landlords challenged these demands, asserting that the orders were void due to non-compliance with the statutory requirement of recording reasons. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the failure to record reasons rendered the orders under Section 5A null and void, thereby invalidating the subsequent demands for contribution.

3. Compliance with Statutory Requirements under Section 5A:
The orders issued by the Collectors did not comply with the statutory requirement of recording reasons for bypassing the notice and inquiry process. The Court noted that in many cases, the orders were issued using a cyclostyled form without proper details. The absence of recorded reasons was a critical flaw, making the orders invalid. The Supreme Court stressed that the recording of reasons is a condition precedent for the exercise of power under Section 5A, and its omission cannot be cured by subsequent justification.

4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The State argued that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to quash the demands under Article 226 because the orders under Section 5A were administrative. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, clarifying that the High Court was within its rights to quash the demands as they were based on void orders. The Court highlighted that the respondents were not challenging the Section 5A orders per se but the demands based on those orders.

5. Estoppel and Acquiescence by the Landlords:
The State contended that the landlords had acquiesced to the orders by not objecting immediately and were thus estopped from challenging them. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, noting that Section 5A does not provide for notice to the affected parties before the work is completed. Therefore, the landlords had no opportunity to object before the completion of the work. The Court found no basis for estoppel or acquiescence in this context.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash the demands for contribution made on the landlords under Section 11 of the Bihar Private Irrigation Works Act, 1922. The failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of recording reasons under Section 5A rendered the orders void. Consequently, the demands based on these void orders were also invalid. The appeals were dismissed with costs, affirming the High Court's jurisdiction and the landlords' right to challenge the demands.