1987 (9) TMI 422 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Notification dated December 9, 1982.
2. Validity of the Orissa Forest Produce (Control of Trade) (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1987.
3. Whether the State encroached upon judicial power by amending the Act.
4. Necessity of issuing a fresh notification under Section 1(3) of the Act.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Notification dated December 9, 1982:
The petitioners, holders of long-term licenses for collecting sal seeds, challenged the notification dated December 9, 1982, issued by the State Government u/s 1(3) of the Orissa Forest Produce (Control of Trade) Act, 1981. The notification directed that the Act shall come into force in the whole of Orissa in relation to sal seeds. The petitioners contended that this notification rescinded their existing contracts. The Supreme Court previously ruled that the Act and the notification did not apply to forest produce grown in Government forests, thus the contracts remained valid.

2. Validity of the Orissa Forest Produce (Control of Trade) (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1987:
The State of Orissa promulgated the Orissa Forest Produce (Control of Trade) (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1987, to counter the Supreme Court's decision. The Ordinance amended the Act to include forest produce grown on Government lands and rescinded all existing contracts. The petitioners challenged the validity of this Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that the Ordinance was valid and effectively rendered the previous judgment ineffective by amending the basis of the law.

3. Whether the State encroached upon judicial power by amending the Act:
The petitioners argued that the State encroached upon judicial power by setting aside the Supreme Court's binding judgment. The Court held that the legislature has the power to enact laws retrospectively and to render judicial decisions ineffective by changing the basis of the law. This does not constitute an encroachment on judicial power as long as the legislative changes are within constitutional limits.

4. Necessity of issuing a fresh notification under Section 1(3) of the Act:
The petitioners contended that a fresh notification u/s 1(3) was necessary for the amended provisions to be effective. The Court held that the validation of the notification dated December 9, 1982, by the Ordinance was sufficient. The amended definition of "forest produce" and the substitution of clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 were deemed to have come into force from the date the Act was originally notified. Thus, the notification was valid and covered the contracts of the petitioners.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the validity of the Orissa Forest Produce (Control of Trade) (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1987, and the notification dated December 9, 1982. The Court ruled that the legislative amendments were within the State's power and did not constitute an encroachment on judicial authority. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.