9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notifications dated June 14, 1951, and June 20, 1953, under Section 3 of the Ordinance. 2. Authority of the Rajpramukh to issue the notification dated June 20, 1953, post the constitution of the Rajasthan Legislature. 3. Validity of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Amendment Act No. X of 1954. 4. Repugnancy of the Ordinance to Article 14 of the Constitution. 5. Contravention of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution by the Ordinance. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Notifications Dated June 14, 1951, and June 20, 1953: The petitioners contended that Section 3 of the Ordinance, which allowed the Rajpramukh to extend the Ordinance's duration, constituted an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. They relied on the decision in *Jatindra Nath Gupta v. The Province of Bihar*, where a similar provision was held invalid. However, the court distinguished the present case by referring to the principle of conditional legislation as established in *The Queen v. Burah*. The court held that Section 3 of the Ordinance fell within the category of conditional legislation and was, therefore, intra vires. The court stated, "What they contend is that while it may be competent to the Legislature to leave it to an outside authority to decide when an enactment might be brought into force, it is not competent to it to authorise that authority to extend the life of the Act beyond the period fixed therein." The court concluded that the power conferred on the Rajpramukh to extend the Ordinance's operation was valid. 2. Authority of the Rajpramukh Post the Constitution of the Rajasthan Legislature: The petitioners argued that the Rajpramukh's authority to legislate under Article 385 of the Constitution ceased once the Rajasthan Legislature was constituted on March 29, 1952. The court clarified that the notification issued under Section 3 of the Ordinance was not an independent piece of legislation but an exercise of a power conferred by an existing statute. The court stated, "The true position is that it is in his character as the authority on whom power was conferred under s. 3 of the Ordinance that the Rajpramukh issued the impugned notification, and not as the legislative authority of the State." Therefore, the notification dated June 20, 1953, was valid. 3. Validity of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Amendment Act No. X of 1954: The petitioners contended that Act No. X of 1954, which extended the life of Ordinance No. IX of 1949, was invalid as the Ordinance had already expired. The court dismissed this contention, stating that if the notifications extending the Ordinance were valid, Act No. X of 1954 would also be valid. The court found no merit in the argument that the Act could not revive a "dead" Ordinance, as the notifications were deemed valid. 4. Repugnancy to Article 14 of the Constitution: The petitioners argued that the Ordinance was discriminatory and violated Article 14, particularly Sections 7(1) and 15. The court held that the Legislature's decision to apply the law from April 1, 1948, was a matter of legislative determination and not subject to judicial review. Regarding Section 15, which allowed the Government to exempt persons from the Ordinance, the court found that the preamble provided sufficient legislative policy to guide the Government's discretion. The court concluded, "We must accordingly hold that the impugned Ordinance cannot be held to be bad under Art. 14." 5. Contravention of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution: The petitioners contended that the Ordinance imposed unreasonable restrictions on their right to hold property. The court noted that the Ordinance aimed to protect tenants from unjust eviction and did not prevent landowners from cultivating their land. The court referred to similar legislation upheld in the United States, such as in *Block v. Hirsh*, and emphasized that the Ordinance was an emergency measure of a temporary nature. The court concluded, "In the circumstances, we are unable to hold that the impugned Ordinance is void as being in contravention of Art. 19 (1) (f)." Conclusion: All the contentions raised by the petitioners were dismissed, and the petitions were accordingly dismissed without costs. The court upheld the validity of the Ordinance, the notifications, and the Amendment Act, finding no violation of constitutional provisions.
|
