9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 1373 - SC - Indian LawsJurisdiction - whether the High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of Constitution of India can pass an order interdicting a legal fiction engrafted in a State enactment? - HELD THAT - Before the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court as well as the Three Judge Bench of this Court in SHANKAR VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 2018 (8) TMI 2058 - SUPREME COURT , the issue as to whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 to stay the consequences of deeming provision was neither considered nor answered. We may clarify that in event there are no orders staying the consequences of deeming fiction as envisaged in proviso to Section 5B, the election shall automatically stand terminated retrospectively but in the present case in the facts of both the appeals, the consequences of deeming fiction as contained in second proviso to Section 5B were stayed/interdicted by order of the High Court, hence the retrospective termination could not take place. From the preposition laid down by this Court in Bihar Public Service Commission and Another Vs. Dr. Shiv Jatan Thakur and Others 1994 (7) TMI 374 - SUPREME COURT , it is clear that such interim direction can be passed by the High Court under Article 226, which could have helped or aided the Court in granting main relief sought in the writ petition. In the present case, the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee having been challenged by the writ petitioners and the High Court finding prima facie substance in the submissions granted interim order, which ultimately fructified in final order setting aside the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The interim order, thus, passed by the High Court was in aid of the main relief, which was granted by the High Court. The provision of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, which provides for the period within which an award shall be made contains a legislative scheme in reference to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Explanation to Section 11A providing that in computing the period of two years referred to in Section 11A, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of said declaration is stated by an order of the Court shall be excluded. Section 11A is a legislative scheme in reference to Land Acquisition Act, which provision is entirely different and does not lend any support to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. There is no fetter in the jurisdiction of the High Court in granting an interim order in a case where caste claim by respondents was illegally rejected before the expiry of period of six months and the High Court granted the interim order before the expiry of period of six months. In the facts of the present case, the deeming fiction of retrospective termination of the election could not come in operation due to the interim order passed by the High Court, hence deeming fiction under Section 5B second proviso never came into existence to retrospectively terminate the election of the respondent. It is thus concluded as follows (i) Section 5B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act does not oust the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. (ii) The High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can pass an order interdicting the legal fiction as contemplated under second proviso to Section 5B, provided the legal fiction had not come into operation. (iii) The interim order dated 18.08.2017 in Writ Petition No.2269 of 2017 as well as the impugned final judgment dated 02.04.2019 were not beyond the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. (iv) The interim order dated 22.08.2017 and final judgement dated 02.04.2019 in Writ Petition No.145 of 2018 were not the orders beyond the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. High Court's power to pass interim or final orders affecting statutory provisions. 3. Validity of interim orders passed by the High Court in election matters. 4. Consequences of non-submission of Caste Validity Certificate within the statutory period. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India: The core issue was whether the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is ousted by the statutory scheme of Section 5B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, which mandates submission of a Caste Validity Certificate within a specified period. The Supreme Court reiterated that the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 32 is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution and constitutes its basic structure. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is original, extraordinary, and discretionary, aimed at remedying injustice and protecting citizens' rights. The Court emphasized that no statutory provision can oust the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226. This principle was supported by precedents such as *Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal Kotah* and *In re The Kerala Education Bill, 1957*. 2. High Court's Power to Pass Interim or Final Orders Affecting Statutory Provisions: The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to pass interim or final orders that interdict the statutory fiction under Section 5B, which deems an election terminated retrospectively if the Caste Validity Certificate is not submitted within the prescribed period. The Court held that the High Court's power to grant interim relief in appropriate cases is not limited by the statutory period prescribed for submitting the certificate. The High Court can pass orders to maintain the status quo to prevent the petition from becoming infructuous, especially when the statutory authority's decision is challenged as illegal. The Court noted that the interim order was issued before the statutory period expired, thus preventing the deeming fiction from coming into operation. 3. Validity of Interim Orders Passed by the High Court in Election Matters: The Supreme Court examined whether the interim orders passed by the High Court, which allowed the respondents to continue in their elected positions despite not submitting the Caste Validity Certificate within the statutory period, were valid. The Court upheld the High Court's interim orders, stating that they were in aid of the main relief sought in the writ petitions. The interim orders were necessary to preserve the status quo and prevent the petitions from becoming infructuous. The Court emphasized that the High Court's jurisdiction to issue interim orders cannot be curtailed by statutory provisions. 4. Consequences of Non-Submission of Caste Validity Certificate within the Statutory Period: The Supreme Court acknowledged the mandatory nature of the requirement to submit the Caste Validity Certificate within the prescribed period under Section 5B. However, it clarified that the High Court's interim orders, which stayed the consequences of non-submission, prevented the statutory fiction of retrospective termination from coming into effect. The Court noted that the statutory requirement is mandatory, but the High Court's jurisdiction to grant interim relief in appropriate cases remains intact. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is not ousted by Section 5B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. The High Court can pass interim and final orders to prevent injustice and maintain the status quo. The interim orders in the present cases were valid and necessary to prevent the writ petitions from becoming infructuous. The appeals were dismissed, and the High Court's judgments were upheld.
|
