Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2016 (10) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2016 (10) TMI 1229 - SC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the State Legislature to legislate for the period prior to the existence of the State.
2. Whether the base of the earlier judgment has been removed by the amendment.
3. Whether vested rights have been affected by the amendment.
4. Whether the amended provisions violate the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Competence of the State Legislature to Legislate for the Period Prior to the Existence of the State:
The court held that the State Legislature has the competence to enact laws retrospectively or prospectively within the constitutional parameters. This was supported by the precedent in M/s. Rattan Lal and Co. v. The Assessing Authority, Patiala, which clarified that post-reorganization, the new State's legislature can amend laws applicable to its area. The court concluded that the Telangana State Legislature could legislate for the period before the State's formation.

2. Whether the Base of the Earlier Judgment has been Removed by the Amendment:
The court examined whether the legislative amendment effectively removed the foundation of the earlier judgment that had declared certain provisions unconstitutional. Citing precedents like Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Broach Borough Municipality, the court noted that the legislature can retrospectively amend laws to remove the cause of invalidity identified by the courts. The court found that the amendment, by substituting "appointed" with "nominated" and making the term of office one year, removed the discrimination identified in the earlier judgment. Thus, the base of the earlier judgment had been effectively removed.

3. Whether Vested Rights have been Affected by the Amendment:
The court addressed the argument that the amendment affected the vested rights of the members, Chairmen, and Vice-Chairmen by curtailing their term. The court noted that these positions were filled by nomination rather than election or selection, and thus did not confer a vested right that could not be altered by legislative amendment. The court cited Om Narain Agarwal v. Nagar Palika, Shahjahanpur, which held that nominated members do not have the same rights as elected members and can be replaced at the government's pleasure. The court concluded that the amendment did not violate any vested rights.

4. Whether the Amended Provisions Violate the Equality Clause Under Article 14 of the Constitution:
The court examined whether the different treatment of market committees and special market committees violated Article 14. It found that the two types of committees served different functions and purposes, and thus could not be directly compared under the equality clause. The court concluded that the characteristics of the committees were sufficiently different to justify the different treatment, and thus Article 14 was not violated.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Telangana State Legislature had the competence to legislate retrospectively, the amendment effectively removed the base of the earlier judgment, no vested rights were violated, and the amended provisions did not infringe upon the equality clause under Article 14.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates