2010 (5) TMI 965 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of "The Goa (Prohibition of Further Payment and Recovery of Rebate Benefits) Act, 2002".
2. Whether the Act seeks to nullify a Supreme Court judgment.
3. Violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Summary:

1. Constitutional Validity of the Act:
The writ petitions challenge the vires and constitutional validity of "The Goa (Prohibition of Further Payment and Recovery of Rebate Benefits) Act, 2002" u/s Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners argue that the Act is ultra vires of the Constitution and seek a declaration to strike down Sections 2, 3, 5, and 6 of the Act. The State of Goa defends the Act, asserting it was enacted to prevent further payments and recover benefits already availed under unauthorized and illegal notifications, thus safeguarding the public exchequer.

2. Nullification of Supreme Court Judgment:
The petitioners contend that the Act seeks to nullify a Supreme Court judgment dated 13.02.2001, which affirmed the High Court of Bombay's decision dated 21.01.1999. They argue that the Act aims to give effect to a subsequent High Court judgment dated 19/24th April 2001, which is under appeal before the Supreme Court, thereby frustrating their rights u/s Article 136 of the Constitution. The Court clarifies that the Act imposes a prohibition (u/s 2), requires recovery (u/s 3), and extinguishes liabilities arising from the notifications dated 15.05.1996 and 01.08.1996. The Act is independent of the High Court's judgment and does not seek to nullify any court judgment but addresses the financial implications on the State's finances.

3. Violation of Fundamental Rights:
The petitioners argue that the Act violates their fundamental rights guaranteed u/s Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court finds no basis for this argument, stating that the Act does not suggest invidious discrimination, unreasonable classification, or manifest violation of the equality clause. The Court concludes that the Act is constitutionally valid, does not infringe on fundamental rights, and is enacted in the larger public interest to prevent abuse of public funds.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismisses the writ petitions, upholding the constitutionality of "The Goa (Prohibition of Further Payment and Recovery of Rebate Benefits) Act, 2002". The Act does not suffer from any invalidity and does not aim to nullify any court judgment. The challenge to its constitutionality fails, and the petitions are dismissed without any order as to costs.