1996 (4) TMI 528 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Excessive delegation of legislative power.
2. Repugnancy of Sections 3 & 4 of the Validation Act to Section 7 of the Pondicherry (Administration) Act, 1962 and Section 21 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963.
3. Legislative competence of the Pondicherry Legislature to enact laws with retrospective effect.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Excessive Delegation of Legislative Power:

The appellants argued that the Validation Act involved excessive delegation of legislative power, claiming that the Pondicherry Legislature had abdicated its essential legislative functions. They contended that Sections 3 and 4 of the Validation Act lacked discernible guidelines or policy, making the delegation unbridled and absolute.

The Court, however, found that the question of excessive delegation did not arise in this case. It emphasized that the tax in question had been levied in 1970 under the Municipal Decree of 1880, and the Validation Act was enacted by a competent legislature. Sections 3 and 4 of the Validation Act specifically empowered the levy of taxes, duties, cesses, or fees, and validated the taxes already levied. The Court concluded that the Validation Act did not involve any further act of subordinate legislation, as the essential ingredients of the levy and assessment of tax on petrol and diesel oil were already known and available to the legislature. Therefore, the Validation Act did not suffer from excessive delegation.

2. Repugnancy to Section 7 of the Pondicherry (Administration) Act, 1962 and Section 21 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963:

The appellants contended that Sections 3 and 4 of the Validation Act were repugnant to Section 7 of the Pondicherry (Administration) Act, 1962, and Section 21 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963. They argued that the expression "lawfully levied" under Section 7 meant that the levy under the Municipal Decree had to be validly and actually levied, and the Validation Act could not override these provisions.

The Court rejected this argument, stating that Section 7 of the Pondicherry Administration Act merely continued existing taxes and did not prohibit the imposition of new taxes by a competent legislature. The Validation Act explicitly stated that taxes could be levied notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of the Pondicherry Administration Act or any other provision of any Act passed by the Legislature of the Union Territory of Pondicherry. Therefore, the Validation Act was not repugnant to Section 7 of the Pondicherry Administration Act, 1962, or Section 21 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963.

3. Legislative Competence of the Pondicherry Legislature to Enact Laws with Retrospective Effect:

The appellants argued that the Pondicherry Legislature did not have plenary powers to enact laws with retrospective effect or laws contrary to those made by the Parliament under Articles 239 and 239A of the Constitution. They contended that the Pondicherry Legislature could not pass the Validation Act, which had the effect of re-enacting and imposing restrictions on diesel and petrol with retrospective effect.

The Court held that Article 239A of the Constitution and Section 18 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, empowered the Pondicherry Legislature to make laws for the Union Territory with respect to matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List. The Court noted that the Pondicherry Legislature had the power to legislate with retrospective effect and pass a Validation Act, similar to the powers of a State Legislature. The Validation Act, therefore, was within the legislative competence of the Pondicherry Legislature.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the appellants. The Validation Act was held to be intra vires, and the Pondicherry Legislature was deemed competent to enact the law with retrospective effect. The Court upheld the levy of the municipal tax on petrol and diesel oil and validated the taxes already levied under the Municipal Decree of 1880. The appeals were dismissed with costs.