9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (9) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utta Special Court for trial. On account of the proceedings taken in the write jurisdiction of the High Court the trial could not be proceeded with. On 1st October, 1962 the State Government constituted a Special Court known as the Fourth Additional Special Court under Section 2 of Act XXI of 1949 and by another order of October 16, 1962 the State Government superseded the earlier order of December 8, 1959 and re-allotted the case to the Fourth Additional Special Court. The appellant Mahal Chand Sethia, challenged the order of re-allotment by a writ petition filed on 11th January. 1963 which was summarily dismissed by a single Judge. The appellate Court directed a rule to issue and that rule was made absolute by a single Judge on September ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l issued Ordinance VIII of 1965 on September 20, 1965 purporting to amend Section 4 of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 by deletion of old Sub-section (3) and the insertion of a new Sub-section (3) thereto reading: If at any time the State Government thinks fit to do so, it may withdraw any case from any Special Court and transfer the same to any other Special Court for disposal; In terms of Section 2 of the Ordinance this new sub section shall be and shall be deemed to have always been substituted for the old sub-section. Section 3 of the ordinance provided that: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court or tribunal, where the State Govern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nance and the Act the original order of transfer was validated from the date when it was made. 3. The argument of counsel for the appellant was that although it was open to the State Legislature by an Act and the Governor by an Ordinance to amend the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 it was incompetent for either of them to validate an order of transfer which had already been quashed by the issue of a writ of certiorari by the High Court and the older of transfer being virtually dead, could not be resuscitated by the Governor or Legislature and the validating measures could not touch any adjudication by the Court. 4. It appears to us that the High Court took the correct view and the Fourth Special Court had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pass Acts styled Amending and Validating Act; the object being not only to amend the law from a past date but to protect and validate actions already taken which would otherwise be invalid as done without legislative sanction. There is nothing in our Constitution which creates any fetter on the legislature's jurisdiction to amend laws with retrospective effect and validate transactions effected in the past. Further, there is nothing in our Constitution which restricts such jurisdiction of the legislature to cases where court's of law have not pronounced upon the invalidity or infirmity of any legislative measure. Instances of the legislature's user of such power, upheld by our courts, are copious. In State of Orissa v. Bhupendra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ruck down by this Court, The State of Bihar then issued Ordinance II of 1961 purporting to validate and bring into force retrospectively the material provisions of the earlier Act from the date when it had come into force. The provisions of the Ordinance were later incorporated in the Bihar Taxation on Passangers and Goods (Carried by Public Service Motor Vehicles) Act, 1961. By the retrospective operation of the Act its material provisions were deemed to have come into force from April 1, 1950 i.e. when the Act of 1950 had come into force. The observations made in that case at pages 908 and 909 clearly show that it is competent to an appropriate legislature to cure the infirmity in any statute pointed out by a court of law and pass a valid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f any court to the contrary. One of the arguments before this Court was that it was not open to the legislature to under the effect of the judgment of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. V. P. Sharma (5) where it had been held that once a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was made the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was exhausted and there could not be successive notifications under Section 6 with respect to land in a locality specified in one notification under Section 4 (1) This objection was rejected by this Court. The effect and validity of retrospective legislation was considered in that case in , some detail and it was observed that: .... the power to legislate for validating action take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
