1959 (3) TMI 59 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Orissa Municipal Elections Validation Ordinance, 1959.
2. Constitutionality of Section 4 of the Ordinance under Article 14 of the Constitution.
3. Constitutionality of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Ordinance.
4. Effect of the Ordinance on the judgment in O.J.C. No. 72 of 1958.
5. Legislative power vs. judicial power in enacting the Ordinance.
6. Impact of the Legislative Assembly's refusal to introduce the Bill on the validity of the Ordinance.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Orissa Municipal Elections Validation Ordinance, 1959:
The petition challenged the Ordinance as void and inoperative in its application to Cuttack Municipality. The Ordinance was promulgated by the Governor of Orissa to validate the elections to Cuttack Municipality despite the High Court's judgment in O.J.C. No. 72 of 1958 declaring the elections invalid. The Ordinance aimed to provide immediate steps to validate the electoral rolls and elections to avoid huge expenditure and administrative problems.

2. Constitutionality of Section 4 of the Ordinance under Article 14 of the Constitution:
Section 4 of the Ordinance was argued to offend the equality clause guaranteed in Article 14 of the Constitution. It was contended that the petitioner was singled out and deprived of the fruits of his success in O.J.C. No. 72 of 1958 without any reasonable basis for such classification. The court held that the reasons provided for the classification, such as financial expenditure and administrative problems, were unsubstantial and did not justify the discriminatory treatment against the petitioner. The court emphasized that Article 14 is a command to the State to ensure equality and cannot be weakened by arbitrary classification.

3. Constitutionality of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Ordinance:
Sub-section (1) of Section 5 validated "all actions taken and powers exercised" by the Councillors, Chairman, and Vice-Chairman of Cuttack Municipality prior to 15-1-1959. The court found this provision to be overly broad and inconsistent with existing laws, such as the Indian Penal Code and the Contract Act, which deal with matters in the Concurrent List. The provision was also found to arbitrarily discriminate between the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Councillors on one hand, and the officers and servants of the Municipality on the other, in terms of liability for actions done under the Orissa Municipal Act. Consequently, Sub-section (1) of Section 5 was held to be void.

4. Effect of the Ordinance on the judgment in O.J.C. No. 72 of 1958:
The judgment in O.J.C. No. 72 of 1958 declared the elections to Cuttack Municipality invalid due to the belated notification of the qualifying date and the abridgement of the period for filing claims and objections, which materially affected the election results. The court held that Section 4 of the Ordinance, which aimed to annul the judgment, was insufficiently drafted to achieve this purpose. It did not address the material prejudice caused by the abridgement of the period for filing claims and objections and the period for canvassing. Therefore, the judgment in O.J.C. No. 72 of 1958 remained binding between the parties.

5. Legislative power vs. judicial power in enacting the Ordinance:
The court rejected the contention that the Ordinance was a mere colorable device to set aside the judgment of the High Court and an assumption of judicial power by the Governor. It held that the constitutionality of an Ordinance must be judged based on whether it contravenes the provisions of the Constitution, not on the ground of usurpation of judicial power by the Legislature or the Governor.

6. Impact of the Legislative Assembly's refusal to introduce the Bill on the validity of the Ordinance:
The court dismissed the argument that the Legislative Assembly's refusal to grant leave for the introduction of the Orissa Municipal Election Validating Bill, 1959, was tantamount to disapproval of the Ordinance. It held that the refusal of leave for the introduction of a Bill does not equate to passing a resolution disapproving the Ordinance. The procedure for introducing a Bill is distinct from that for moving a resolution, and the refusal to grant leave for the Bill's introduction only meant that the Bill would be removed from the list of Bills for one session of the Assembly.

Conclusion:
The court declared Section 4 and Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Ordinance invalid. It held that Section 4 was insufficient to annul the judgment in O.J.C. No. 72 of 1958, and Sub-section (1) of Section 5 was void due to its inconsistency with existing laws and arbitrary discrimination. The court granted a permanent injunction restraining the State of Orissa and the elected Councillors from enforcing the invalidated provisions of the Ordinance.