9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Bill was introduced in the Parliament with a view to rationalise and simplify the classification of excise on goods. The Bill was introduced under the name of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1985"). Under the said Bill, the cranes were shown as falling under Chapter 84, Heading 84.26 and sub-heading No. 8426. In the English version of the Bill introduced in the Lok Sabha, the rate of duty payable under the sub-heading 8426 was shown as 12% ad valorem. In the Hindi version of the said Bill introduced in Lok Sabha, the rate of duty was mentioned as 15% ad valorem. The Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha without any amendment. The Bill passed by the Lok Sabha was sent to Rajya Sabha. The Rajya Sabha passed the same without any amendment and returned the same which was sent for assent of the Hon'ble President of India. The assent was received on 18th January, 1986. 3. The said Act of 1985 which was gazetted showed that the rate of duty against the sub-heading 8426 was 15% ad valorem. On 6th March, 1986, the Petitioner filed Classification List effective from 1st March, 1986 in which the cranes were shown as falling under sub-heading 842 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecific directions were issued by this Court to the Respondents to produce the following documents. "(i) English copy of the Bill No. 202 of 1985 printed for introduction in Lok Sabha. (ii) Hindi version of the Bill No. 202 of 1985 for introduction in Lok Sabha. (iii) Copy of the Bill No. 202-C of 1985, as passed by Lok Sabha on 16th December, 1985. (iv) The Gazetted copy of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986)." 6. There is a reference in the orders of this Court to the correspondence made by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents. By an order dated 8th September, 2010, this Court again issued a direction to produce the aforesaid four documents as well as the order, if any, passed by the Hon'ble Speaker of Lok Sabha amending the Bill No. 202 of 1985. Along with the affidavit dated 12th October, 2010 of R. Sundira Raju, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Kalyan-IV Division, certain documents were filed in compliance with the aforesaid order of the Court. The first document produced is the English version of Bill No. 202 of 1985. The said English version shows the rate of duty as 12% ad valore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble Speaker for acceptance as a patent error. 7. The submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that in view of the Article 348 of the Constitution of India, the language of the Bill presented in the Parliament is always English. He submitted that what was passed by the Lok Sabha was a Bill in which the rate of duty was mentioned as 12% ad valorem and not 15% ad valorem. He submitted that after the English version of the Bill containing duty of 12% was passed by the Lok Sabha, while sending the Bill as passed by the Lok Sabha to the Rajya Sabha, a Draftsman of the Legislative Department carried out the change without bringing the change to the notice of the Hon'ble Speaker and the Hon'ble Speaker did not accept the said error as a patent error. The Hon'ble Speaker did not authorize the error to be corrected. He submitted that though in the Affidavit dated 16th August, 1988 filed on behalf of the Respondents, it was suggested that the Hon'ble Speaker had corrected the rate of duty, now the latest affidavit dated 12th October, 2010 clearly records that the said change made by the Draftsman was not even brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Speaker. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble President who gave assent to it. He submitted that in view of the Article 122(1) of the Constitution of India, the validity of the proceedings before the Parliament cannot be questioned on the ground of the alleged irregularity of procedure. He relied upon an unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated 2nd September, 2011 in Writ Petition No. 1261 of 2009. He, therefore, submitted that no interference is called for. 9. We have carefully considered the submissions. It will be necessary to make a reference to the last Affidavit of the Respondents dated 12th October, 2010. To the said Affidavit, a factual note prepared by the Joint Secretary of the Lok Sabha has been annexed. The relevant part of the said note reads thus :- "In the instant case, the proof copies of the English and Hindi version of Bill forwarded by the Ministry of Law to the Lok Sabha Secretariat contained the tariff @ 15% against the sub-heading No. 8426.00. The proofs were sent for printing by the Lok Sabha Secretariat. At the time of printing some mistakes took place at the Press. Consequently, while the Hindi version of the printed Bill showed the tariff @ 15%, the printed copy of the English ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... msp; (Underlines supplied) 10. What is stated in the said note has been reiterated in the Affidavit. Thus, the factual position which emerges from the aforesaid discussion can be summarized as under :- (i) In the original English text of the Bill forwarded to Lok Sabha Secretariat the rate of 15% was incorporated against sub-heading 8426. While printing the Bill, the said rate was wrongly printed as 12%. (ii) The Bill No. 202 of 1985 was introduced in Lok Sabha both in English and Hindi versions. (iii) The English version mentioned the relevant rate of duty at 12% and Hindi version incorporated the rate of duty at 15%. (iv) After the Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha, the Draftsman of the Legislative Department carried out correction in the English version by substituting 15% for 12%. (v) The fact of carrying out correction of inadvertent mistake in the English version by the Legislative Department was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Speaker of Lok Sabha. (vi) The corrected English version was sent to the Government of India Press for printing which contains rate of duty at 15% and the said version was sent to Rajya Sabha. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clause shall apply to any judgment, decree or order passed or made by such High Court. (3) Notwithstanding anything in sub-clause (b) of clause (1), where the Legislature of a State has prescribed any language other than the English language for use in Bills introduced in, or Acts passed by, the Legislature of the State or in Ordinances promulgated by the Governor of the State or in any order, rule, regulation or bye-law referred to in paragraph (iii) of that sub-clause, a translation of the same in the English language published under the authority of the Governor of the State in the Official Gazette of that State shall be deemed to be the authoritative text thereof in the English language under this article." 13. Article 120 lays down that subject to the provisions of Article 348 of the Constitution of India, the business in Parliament shall be transacted in Hindi or English. Article 120 has been given overriding effect over the provisions of Part XVII which deals with the official languages but it is made subject to Article 348 of the Constitution of India. Thus, Article 348 will have to be read as an exception to Article 120. The exception is that the authoritative texts of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ads thus :- "18. Article 348(1)(b) of the Constitution provides that notwithstanding anything in Part II (in Chapter II Articles 346 and 347 relate to regional languages) the authoritative text of all bills to be introduced and amendments thereto to be moved in either House of Parliament....of all ordinances promulgated by the President ........... and all orders, rules, regulations and bye-laws issued under the Constitution or under any law made by the Parliament, shall be in the English language. By operation of sub-article (3) thereof with a non obstante clause, where the Legislature of a State has prescribed any language other than the English language for use in Bills introduced in, or Acts passed by, the Legislature of the State or in Ordinances promulgated by the governor of the State or in any order, rule, regulation or bye-law referred to in paragraph (iii) of that sub-clause, a translation of the same in the English language published under the authority of the governor of the State in the official Gazette of that State shall be deemed to be the authoritative text thereof in the English language under this article. It is the authoritative text. When the the Schedules wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Speaker to enable the Hon'ble Speaker to exercise the power under Rule 95. Article 212 makes a similar provision regarding validity of the proceedings of the Legislature of the State. Clause (1) of Article 212 was dealt with by Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of M.S.M. Sharma v. Dr. Shree Krishna Sinha & Others, (AIR 1960 SC 1186). In Paragraph 10, the Apex Court has observed thus:- "10. ..........It must also be observed that once it has been held that the Legislature has the jurisdiction to control the publication of its proceedings and to go into the question whether there has been any breach of its privileges, the Legislature is vested with complete jurisdiction to carry on its proceedings in accordance with its rules of business. Even though it may not have strictly complied with the requirements of the procedural law laid down for conducting its business, that cannot be a ground for interference by this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution. Courts have always recognised the basic difference between complete want of jurisdiction and improper or irregular exercise of jurisdiction. Mere non-compliance with rules of procedure cannot be a ground for issuing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
