9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Vires of Section 6(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. 2. Validity of the notification issued under Section 6(2) on October 17, 1952. 3. Whether the notification offends against Article 31 of the Constitution. 4. Whether the power to issue a notification under Section 6(2) was exhausted after the first notification. 5. Interpretation of "any particular area" in Section 6(2). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Vires of Section 6(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: The appellants contended that Section 6(2) suffers from the vice of excessive delegation. They argued that the power delegated to the Provincial Government is unfettered and uncanalised, with no guidance provided for its exercise. The High Court held that the delegation involved in Section 6(2) is within permissible limits and as such, the challenge to the vires of the said provision cannot succeed. The Supreme Court reiterated that the power of delegation is a constituent element of legislative power and emphasized that the Legislature must lay down the legislative policy and principle and provide guidance for carrying out the said policy before delegating subsidiary powers. The Court found that the legislative policy was clearly expressed in the relevant provisions of the Act and the factors for determining reasonable rent were specified in Section 12(3). Therefore, the delegation made by Section 6(2) did not suffer from the infirmity of excessive delegation. 2. Validity of the Notification Issued under Section 6(2) on October 17, 1952: The appellants argued that even if Section 6(2) is valid, the impugned notification is invalid as it offends against Article 31 of the Constitution. They conceded that the Act itself is saved under Article 31B but argued that the notification amounted to fresh legislation to which Article 31B cannot apply. The Court held that if Section 6(2) is valid, then the exercise of the power validly conferred on the Provincial Government cannot be treated as fresh legislation violating Article 31. 3. Whether the Notification Offends Against Article 31 of the Constitution: The appellants contended that the notification offends against Article 31 of the Constitution. The Court held that since the Act is saved by Article 31B, Section 6(2) is also saved, and the power must be held to be validly conferred on the Provincial Government. Therefore, a notification issued by virtue of the said powers cannot be challenged on the ground that it violates Article 31. 4. Whether the Power to Issue a Notification under Section 6(2) was Exhausted After the First Notification: The appellants argued that the power to issue a notification conferred by Section 6(2) was exhausted as soon as the Government issued the first notification on June 23, 1949. The Court rejected this argument, stating that Section 14 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, provides that where any power is conferred on any Government, that power may be exercised from time to time as occasion requires. Therefore, the power to issue a notification under Section 6(2) can be exercised from time to time as occasion requires. 5. Interpretation of "Any Particular Area" in Section 6(2): The appellants argued that the expression "any particular area" would not be applicable to the areas in which the appellants' lands are situated. The Court found this argument to be far-fetched and fatuous and did not consider it further. Separate Judgment by K. Subba Rao, J.: Justice K. Subba Rao dissented on the question of the vires of Section 6(2). He argued that the section exceeds the limits of permissible delegated legislation. He emphasized that the legislature must lay down a definite policy and standard for the guidance of the executive. He found that Section 6(2) conferred arbitrary and unguided powers on the Provincial Government without laying down any legislative standard, thereby exceeding the permissible limits of delegation. Consequently, he held that Section 6(2) is void and allowed the appeals with costs. Conclusion: In view of the majority judgment, the appeals were dismissed with costs.
|
