1973 (9) TMI 115 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of revision against the decision of the Dy. DC in consolidation proceedings.
2. Interpretation of the retrospective effect of an Amending Act on the revisional jurisdiction.
3. Application of the principle of res judicata in light of legislative amendments.
4. Impact of retrospective changes in the law on previous court decisions and legislative enactments.
5. Consideration of Section 3(2) of the Amending Act in saving previous court orders.
6. Review of the order of the Dy. DC for manifest error of law.

Analysis:
1. The appeal stemmed from consolidation proceedings where the Appellants challenged the order allowing a second appeal, leading to a revision dismissed by the Commissioner. A writ petition was filed in the High Court, which held the revision maintainable, directing the Commissioner to decide on merits. The Commissioner allowed the revision on 18-12-1968, setting aside the Dy. DC's order.

2. The Respondents contended, citing an Amending Act, that no revision was maintainable against the Dy. DC's decision with retrospective effect. A Division Bench decision supported this argument. The single Judge upheld this view, stating no error of law in the Dy. DC's order warranted interference, leading to the special appeal.

3. The Appellants argued for res judicata based on a prior judgment, but the Court clarified that legislative amendments, especially with retrospective effect, nullify previous court decisions. The Court referenced Deep Chand Jain v. Board of Revenue to emphasize that court declarations are limited by the life of the law.

4. The retrospective change in Section 48 altered the hierarchy, impacting the previous interpretation. The Court emphasized that no court judgment can override legislative changes made retrospectively, highlighting the Director's lack of jurisdiction post-amendment.

5. The argument that Section 3(2) of the Amending Act would save the Director's order was dismissed as the Act's commencement predated the revision decision. The Court clarified that the provision saved orders passed before the Act's commencement, not subsequent decisions like the revision.

6. Lastly, the Court reviewed the Dy. DC's order for manifest errors of law but found the conclusions based on evidence without such errors. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the decision to set aside the Dy. DC's order in the consolidation proceedings.