9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Governor on the ground of non-compliance with the procedure for passing Bills, or from otherwise questioning the Bills passed by the House. To put it clear, proceedings inside the Legislature cannot be called into question on the ground that they have not been carried on in accordance with the Rules of Business. The question whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not can be raised only in the State Legislative Assembly by a member thereof when the Bill is pending in the State Legislature and before it becomes an Act. It is brought to our notice that in the instant case no such question was ever raised by anyone. Though it is claimed that the Amendment Act could not have been enacted by passing the Bill as a Money Bill because the Act was not enacted by passing the Bill as a Money Bill, as rightly pointed out, there is no such rule that if the Bill in a case of an original Act was not a Money Bill, no subsequent Bill for amendment of the original Act can be a Money Bill. It is brought to our notice that the Act has been amended earlier by the U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 1988 and the same was enacted by passing the Money Bill. By the said Amendment Act of 1988 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions of the Constitution of India. 2) Brief facts: ( a) Mr. Justice N.K. Mehrotra (retd.), Respondent No. 2 herein, was appointed as Lokayukta for the State of Uttar Pradesh on 16.03.2006 under the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 (for short the Act ). ( b) Section 5(1) of the Act provides that the term for which Lokayukta shall hold office is six years from the date on which he enters upon his office. Further, Section 5(3) provides that on ceasing to hold office, the Lokayukta or Up- Lokayukta shall be ineligible for further appointment, whether as a Lokayukta or Up-Lokayukta or in any other capacity under the Government of Uttar Pradesh. Respondent No. 2 completed his term of six years on 15.03.2012. ( c) On 15.03.2012, the new government formed after the Uttar Pradesh State Assembly elections. On the same day, an Ordinance for amending the Act was passed by the Cabinet and sent to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh for assent. However, the same did not receive the assent of the Governor. ( d) On 18.03.2012, another Ordinance on the same subject matter was sent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er sought to add two grounds in the writ petition, viz., the Amendment Act is violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India and the same was wrongly introduced as a Money Bill in clear disregard to the provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, it was prayed to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the Amendment Act as ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India. 7) Being aggrieved of the judgment and order dated 27.08.2012, the State of U.P. has filed the afore-said appeal by way of special leave. 8) By an order dated 24.09.2012, this Court stayed the further proceedings in CMWP No. 24905 of 2012. 9) Heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 228 and 410 of 2012, Mr. Ashok H. Desai, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh and Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel for Mr. Justice N.K. Mehrotra (retd.), Respondent No. 2 herein in W.P.(C) Nos. 228 and 410 of 2012. Contentions: 10) Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst whom, along with others, Respondent No. 2 has recommended action on grave charges of corruption. The petitioner herein, Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui, was the agent/representative (pairokar) of the son of Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui in the complaint against Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui before Respondent No. 2 and he has filed the present writ petition, as also his earlier writ petition, as a proxy of Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui. 14) It was further submitted that the petitioner, for oblique motives, is questioning the valid legislative and executive actions. The writ petition, which has been filed under the guise of redressing a public grievance, is lacking in bona fides and is an outcome of malice and ill-will, which the petitioner nurses against Respondent No. 2 for making the reports specifically those against Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui. In the present writ petition as also in his earlier writ petition, the petitioner has made yet another collateral attack by questioning the title of Respondent No. 2 to the office of Lokayukta in order to stall the action/enquiry in respect of the grave charges of corruption that has been ordered pursuant to the reports of Respondent No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eemuddin Siddiqui, ex-Cabinet Minister, U.P. 19) Dr. Dhawan further submitted that the petitioner is a proxy of Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui. Further, both Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui and his wife were members of the U.P. Legislature when the Amendment Act was enacted. Accordingly, any challenge to the said Amendment Act by Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui or his wife would not be maintainable as they, as sitting members of the State Legislature, cannot assail and disown an action of the same State Legislature. 20) Dr. Dhawan submitted that Respondent No. 2 was appointed as the Lokayukta, U.P. on 16.03.2006 and he is continuing as such after 15.03.2012 under a valid law, viz., the Amendment Act, which has been duly enacted by the competent legislature. It was urged that the contentions of the petitioner regarding Money Bill is baseless and pointed out that the earlier two amendments to the Act in the year 1981 and 1988 were also by way of Money Bills, which is concealed by the petitioner. Further, it was submitted that the finality of the Speaker s decision and the legislative process cannot be challenged in a Court of law. 21) We have carefully ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r that clause instead of the Leader of the Opposition. ( 2) Every person appointed as the Lokayukta or an Up- Lokayukta shall before entering upon his office, make and subscribe before the Governor or some person appointed in that behalf by him, an oath or affirmation in the form set out for the purpose in the First Schedule. ( 3) The Up-Lokayuktas shall be subject to the administrative control of the Lokayukta and in particular for the purpose of convenient disposal of investigations under this Act, the Lokayukta any issue such general or special direction as he may consider necessary to the Up- Lokayukta: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be construed to authorize the Lokayukta to question any finding conclusion or recommendation of an Up- Lokayukta. 25) Section 5 speaks about terms of office and other conditions of service of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta which reads as under: 5. Terms of office and other conditions of service of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta.- ( 1) Every person appointed as the Lokayukta or Up- Lokayukta shall hold o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nance No. 1 of 2012). The same was replaced by the Act, namely, U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012 (U.P. Act 4 of 2012). As per the said ordinance and Act, the amendment relating to Section 2 shall be deemed to have come into force on 15.03.2012 and the remaining provisions shall come into force at once. It is also relevant to refer the amendments brought in by this Amendment Act, which are as under: Amendment of Section 5 of U.P. Act No. 42 of 1975 2. In Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up- Lokayuktas Act, 1975 hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act.- ( a) for sub-section (1) the following sub-section shall be substituted and be deemed to have been substituted on March 15, 2012 namely:- ( 1) Every person appointed as the Lokayukta or Up- Lokayukta shall hold office for a term of eight years from the date on which he enters upon his office: Provided that the Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta shall, notwithstanding the expiration of his term continue to hold office until his successor enters upon his office. Provided fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tain provisions. In order to further understand the intention of the Government for bringing such amendment, it is useful to refer the statement of objects and reasons , which is as under: Statement of objects and reasons:- The Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 (U.P. Act no. 42 of 1 975) has been enacted to make provision for the appointment and functions of certain authorities for the investigation grievances and allegations against minister, Legislators and other public servants in certain cases. Under the said Act Shri Narendra Kishor Mehrotra was appointed as Lokayukta vide notification no. 40 Lo.Aa/39-4-2006-15(5) 2006, dated March 9, 2006 from the date he resumes office. Shri Mehrotra resumed his office after taking oath on March 16, 2006. The term of Shri Mehrotra as such was expired on March 15, 2012 after the completion of the period of six years under the then provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the said Act and no decision had been taken for the appointment of another person as the Lokayukta. Since the decision to appoint another person would take time, it has been decided to amend the said Act to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the amendment of the law with respect to any financial obligations undertaken or to be undertaken by the State; ( c) the custody of the Consolidated Fund or the Contingency Fund of the State, the payment of moneys into or the withdrawal of moneys from any such Fund; ( d) the appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of the State; ( e) the declaring of any expenditure to be expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State, or the increasing of the amount of any such expenditure; ( f) the receipt of money on account of the Consolidated Fund of the State or the public account of the State or the custody or issue of such money; or ( g) any matter incidental to any of the matters specified in sub-clauses (a) to (f). ( 2) A Bill shall not be deemed to be a Money Bill by reason only that it provides for the imposition of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment of fees for licences or fees for services rendered, or by reason that it provides for the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tees thereof. 34) We have already quoted Article 199. In terms of Article 199(3), the decision of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly that the Bill in question was a Money Bill is final and the said decision cannot be disputed nor can the procedure of State Legislature be questioned by virtue of Article 212. We are conscious of the fact that in the decision of this Court in Raja Ram Pal vs. Hon ble Speaker Lok Sabha and Others (2007) 3 SCC 184, it has been held that the proceedings which may be tainted on account of substantive or gross irregularity or unconstitutionality are not protected from judicial scrutiny. 35) Even if it is established that there was some infirmity in the procedure in the enactment of the Amendment Act, in terms of Article 255 of the Constitution the matters of procedures do not render invalid an Act to which assent has been given to by the President or the Governor, as the case may be. 36) In the case of M.S.M. Sharma vs. Shree Krishna Sinha AIR 1960 SC 1186 and Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs. State of Mysore and Another AIR 1963 SC 589, the Constitution Benches of this Court held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch rule that if the Bill in a case of an original Act was not a Money Bill, no subsequent Bill for amendment of the original Act can be a Money Bill. It is brought to our notice that the Act has been amended earlier by the U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 1988 and the same was enacted by passing the Money Bill. By the said Amendment Act of 1988, Section 5(1) of the Act was amended to provide that the term of the Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta shall be six years instead of five years. 41) With regard to giving effect to the Amendment Act retrospectively, as rightly pointed out by the State, a deeming clause/legal fiction must be given full effect and shall be carried to its logical conclusion. As observed in K. Kamaraja Nadar vs. Kunju Thevar AIR 1958 SC 687, the effect of a legal fiction is that a position which otherwise would not obtain is deemed to obtain under those circumstances. The materials placed clearly show that the Amendment Act has been enacted by a competent legislature with legislative intent to provide a term of eight years to Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta, whether present or future, to ensure effective implementation of the Act. We ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
