2003 (10) TMI 665 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking a writ or order in the nature of mandamus - Applicability of Section 5 of the General Clauses Act 1897 to the Delhi Rent Act 1995 - National Housing Policy and for rationalisation of rent laws to give incentive to the growth of the housing in general and rental housing - HELD THAT - In the present case the Government received several representations from tenant organisations demanding changes in some of the provisions and the Government on receipt of numeral representations constituted an All Party Committee to re-examine as to whether the Act should be notified or it should be amended in the light of the representations received. After detailed examination it was finally decided to carry out certain amendments to the Act. Accordingly Delhi Rent (amendment) Bill was drafted and introduced in the Rajya Sabha. The Amendment Bill was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee which examined the amendments suggested in depth. The Parliamentary Standing Committee finalised its reports in December 2000. The Government after considering the Report accepted the recommendations of the Committee on 3rd April 2001 and thereafter the notice was sent to the Secretary-General Rajya Sabha to introduce the Amendment Bill. From the record it cannot be said that Government is not alive to the problem or is desirous of ignoring the will of the Parliament. When the legislature itself had vested the power in the Central Government to notify the date from which the Act would come into force then the Central Government is entitled to take into consideration various facts including the facts set out above while considering when the Act should be brought into force or not. No mandamus can be issued to the Central Government to issue the notification contemplated under Section 1(3) of the Act to bring the Act into force keeping in view the facts brought on record and the consistent view of this Court. It is plain and evident from the language of the provision. Section 5(1) provides that where any Central Act is not expressed to come into operation on particular day then it shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the assent . Sub-clause (3) provides that unless the contrary is expressed a Central Act or Regulation shall be construed as coming into operation immediately on the expiration of the day preceding its commencement . Thus if a Central Act is assented by the President on 23.8.1995 then it would be construed to have come into operation on the mid-night between 22nd and 23rd August 1995. Sub-section (3) has to be read as a corollary to sub-section (1). Sub- section (1) provides that the Act would come into operation on the date it receives the assent of the President where a particular day w.e.f. which the Act would come into force is not prescribed whereas sub-section (3) provides the exact time of the day/night when the Act would come into force. It would not apply to cases where the legislature has delegated the power to the executive to bring into force the Act from a date to be notified by publication in the Official Gazette. Thus we do not find any merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to the Central Government to notify the Delhi Rent Act, 1995.
2. Applicability of Section 5 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to the Delhi Rent Act, 1995.

Summary:

1. Writ of Mandamus to Notify the Delhi Rent Act, 1995:
The appellant filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Union of India to notify the Delhi Rent Act, 1995. The High Court's Division Bench had differing opinions: one judge issued an absolute mandamus to notify the Act within six weeks, while the other issued a limited mandamus for the government to consider whether the time to enforce the Act had arrived. The third judge disagreed with both, stating that even a limited mandamus was inappropriate given the government's intention to amend the Act before notifying it. The Supreme Court held that it is not within the court's purview to compel the government to bring the Act into force, as the Parliament had delegated this discretion to the Central Government. The executive is responsible to the Parliament, which can censure the executive if it fails to act. The court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the government regarding the timing of the Act's enforcement.

2. Applicability of Section 5 of the General Clauses Act, 1897:
The appellant contended that the Act should come into force immediately upon Presidential assent as per Section 5 of the General Clauses Act. However, the Supreme Court clarified that Section 5 applies only when an Act does not specify a commencement date. Since Section 1(3) of the Delhi Rent Act explicitly states that the Act shall come into force on a date to be notified by the Central Government, Section 5 of the General Clauses Act is inapplicable. The court emphasized that the Act's commencement is contingent upon a notification by the Central Government, as explicitly provided by the legislature.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that no mandamus could be issued to compel the Central Government to notify the Delhi Rent Act, 1995, and that Section 5 of the General Clauses Act does not apply to the Act. The court reiterated that the discretion to notify the Act lies with the Central Government, as per the legislative mandate.