1957 (1) TMI 54 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Vires of Section 3(3) of the Assam Revenue Tribunal (Transfer of Powers) Act, 1948.
2. Validity of Notification No. Rex. 184/52/39 issued by the Governor of Assam.
3. Alleged excessive delegation of legislative power.
4. Compliance with Section 296 of the Government of India Act, 1935.
5. Repugnancy with Section 9 of the Eastern Bengal and Assam Excise Act, 1910.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Vires of Section 3(3) of the Assam Revenue Tribunal (Transfer of Powers) Act, 1948:
The court examined whether Section 3(3) of the 1948 Act was valid. The High Court had deemed it void, arguing it was repugnant to Section 296(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935, and constituted excessive delegation of legislative power. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that Section 296(2) did not impose any obligation on the Provincial Legislature to constitute a tribunal. Rather, it authorized the Governor to constitute a tribunal until other provisions were made by the Provincial Legislature. The court concluded that the Assam Legislature had applied its mind and determined the distribution of appellate powers between the Assam High Court and an authority appointed by the Provincial Government.

2. Validity of Notification No. Rex. 184/52/39:
The High Court had invalidated the notification issued on July 5, 1955, which appointed the Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals as the appellate authority, arguing it was repugnant to the scheme and policy of Section 9 of the 1910 Act. The Supreme Court found no such repugnancy, noting that the appellate jurisdiction had been transferred from the Provincial Government to the Assam Revenue Tribunal and subsequently to the Assam High Court and the authority appointed under Section 3(3) of the 1948 Act. The court held that the notification was valid and in accordance with the legislative framework.

3. Alleged Excessive Delegation of Legislative Power:
The High Court had held that Section 3(3) of the 1948 Act constituted excessive delegation of legislative power. The Supreme Court refuted this, stating that the legislature itself had constituted the appellate authority and only left the appointment of its personnel to the Provincial Government. The court emphasized that the term "appointed" in Section 3(3) referred to the selection of personnel rather than the constitution of the authority itself. This practice was consistent with other legislative enactments, and there was no excessive delegation of legislative power.

4. Compliance with Section 296 of the Government of India Act, 1935:
The High Court interpreted Section 296(2) as imposing an obligation on the Provincial Legislature to constitute a tribunal. The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation, clarifying that Section 296(2) authorized the Governor to constitute a tribunal until the Provincial Legislature made other provisions. The court concluded that the Assam Legislature had complied with this by enacting the 1946 and 1948 Acts, which distributed the appellate jurisdiction between the Assam High Court and the authority appointed under Section 3(3).

5. Repugnancy with Section 9 of the Eastern Bengal and Assam Excise Act, 1910:
The High Court had found the notification repugnant to Section 9 of the 1910 Act. The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the appellate jurisdiction had been transferred from the Provincial Government to the Assam Revenue Tribunal and subsequently to the Assam High Court and the authority appointed under Section 3(3) of the 1948 Act. The court held that there was no repugnancy between the notification and Section 9 of the 1910 Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court, restored the decisions of the appellate authority, and allowed all the appeals. The court found no excessive delegation of legislative power, no repugnancy with Section 9 of the 1910 Act, and concluded that the Assam Legislature had complied with Section 296 of the Government of India Act, 1935. The court made no order as to costs in favor of the State of Assam but awarded costs to the successful appellants in the other appeals.

← Previous Next →