1. Challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 6(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and a notification fixing lower maximum rent. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1960 Supreme(SC) 187
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
25th August, 1960.
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., J.L. KAPUR, P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO, K.N. WANCHOO, JJ.
1. Vasanlal Maganbhai Sanjanwala (In C. A. No. 147 of 1955) and 2. The Pratap Spinning, Weaving and Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (In C. A. No. 148 of 1955), Appellants
Versus
The State of Bombay (now Maharashtra), Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 147 and 148 of 1955.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. V. M. Limaye, Mrs. E. Udayaratnam and Mr. S. S. Shukla, Advocates, for Appellants (in both the Appeals); Mr. H. N. Sanyal, Addl. Solicitor-General of India (M/s. R. Ganapathy Iyer, K. L. Hathi and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates, with him), for Respondent.
Advocates:
E.UDAYARATHNAM, H.N.SANYAL, K.L.Hathi, R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.H.Dhebar, S.S.SHUKLA, V.M.LIMAYA
E.UDAYARATHNAM, H.N.SANYAL, K.L.Hathi, R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.H.Dhebar, S.S.SHUKLA, V.M.LIMAYA
A statute is not void for excessive delegation if the legislature enunciates a clear policy and provides a standard or guidance for the executive. In beneficent legislation, the overall objective and related criteria for implementation can constitute sufficient guidance to validate the delegation of power.
Headnote:(A) Tenancy Act - Sections 6(1), 6(2) and 12(3) - Delegated Legislation - Validity of power to fix maximum rent - The legislature cannot delegate its essential legislative function of laying down policy and principle but may delegate subsidiary powers provided it affords guidance for carrying out the policy. In dealing with challenges of excessive delegation, the court must enquire whether the legislature has enunciated its policy and provided a standard to guide the delegate. (Paras 4, 15)
(B) General Clauses Act - Section 14 - Exercise of power - Where power is conferred on the government, such power may be exercised from time to time as occasion requires, unless a different intention appears. (Para 9)
(C) Constitution of India - Article 31B - If an Act is saved by the Ninth Schedule, a notification issued under a valid provision of that Act cannot be challenged on the ground that it violates fundamental rights. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
Appellants challenged the vires of a provision in a tenancy act that empowered the government to fix a lower rate of maximum rent for tenants in particular areas via notification. They contended that the power delegated was unfettered and uncanalised, and that the subsequent notification reducing the maximum rent was invalid. They further argued that the power to issue such a notification was exhausted after the first instance.
Findings of Court:
The majority held that the delegation was within permissible limits because the legislative policy was evident from the preamble and the overall scheme of the act, which aimed at agrarian reform and protecting tenants. The factors specified for determining reasonable rent provided sufficient guidance for the government to fix a lower maximum rent. The dissent argued that the provision conferred absolute and arbitrary discretion without any legislative standard, effectively allowing the executive to amend the act.
Issues: Whether the provision allowing the government to fix a lower rate of maximum rent suffered from the vice of excessive delegation and whether the power to issue notifications could be exercised more than once.
Ratio Decidendi: Delegation is valid if the legislature provides a policy and a standard to guide the delegate. The beneficent object of the act and the criteria for fixing reasonable rent served as sufficient guidance for the executive. Furthermore, under the General Clauses Act, power conferred on the government is generally exercisable from time to time.
Result: Appeals dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- land law
-
practice and procedure
-
statutory interpretation
- general clauses act (Para 9)
-
statutory interpretation
Table of Contents
2. Whether Section 6(2) constitutes excessive delegation, whether the notification violates Article 31, and whether the power to issue notifications was exhausted after a single exercise. (Para 3 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. Delegation is permissible if the legislature enunciates policy and provides guidance; the Act's preamble and Section 12(3) provide sufficient guidance for fixing rent. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 )
4. Delegation is valid if the legislature lays down the legislative policy and principle and affords guidance to the delegate for carrying out said policy. (Para 4 , 7 )
5. Appeals dismissed with costs. (Para 11 )
6. What is the test for determining whether a statutory provision suffers from the vice of excessive delegation?
The court must enquire whether the impugned delegation involves the delegation of an essential legislative function and whether the legislature has enunciated its policy and principle and provided guidance to the delegate. (Para 4 )
7. Can the preamble of an Act serve as a basis for establishing legislative policy to sustain delegated legislation?
Yes, if the statements in the preamble afford a satisfactory basis for holding that the legislative policy and principle have been enunciated with sufficient accuracy and clarity, the preamble itself satisfies the requirements. (Para 4 )
8. Does the absence of the phrase from time to time in a delegating provision mean the power can only be exercised once?
No; under the General Clauses Act, where power is conferred on the Government, that power may be exercised from time to time as occasion requires, unless a different intention appears. (Para 9 )
9. Does a notification issued under a validly delegated power constitute fresh legislation that can be challenged under Article 31 if the parent Act is saved by Article 31B?
No; if the parent Act is saved by Article 31B, the exercise of power validly conferred by it cannot be treated as fresh legislation that offends Article 31. (Para 8 )
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. (For himself and for B. P. Sinha, C.J.I., J. L. Kapur and K. N. Wanchoo, JJ.) : The appellants in these two appeals had filed two separate petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the Bombay High Court in which they had challenged the vires of S. 6(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (LXVII of 1948) (hereafter called the Act) and the validity of the notification issued by the Government of October 17, 1952, under the provisions of the said S. 6(2). It appears that on June 23, 1949, in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 6(2) of the Act the Government had issued a notification fixing
"in the case of an irrigated land 1/5 and in the case of any other land 1/4 of the crops of such land or its value as determined in the prescribed manner as the maximum rent payable by the tenants of the lands situate in the areas specified in the schedule appended thereto .
Amongst the areas thus specified was the area in which the appellants lands are situated. Subsequently, on October 17, 1952, by virtue of the same powers and in supersession of all other earlier notifications issued in that behalf the Government purported to prescribe a rate as the lower rate of maximum rent at which the rent shall be payable by the tenants in respect of the lands situate in the areas specified in Schedule I appended to it. It is unnecessary to set out the rates thus prescribed; it would be enough to state that the rate of maximum rent prescribed by this notification is very much lower than the rate which had been fixed by the earlier one. By their petitions filed in the Bombay High Court the appellants contended that S. 6(2) was ultra vires, and that even if S. 6(2) was valid the impugned notification was invalid. Accordingly they prayed for a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate direction or order against the Government, the Mamlatdar of the area concerned and their respective tenants prohibiting them or any one of them from giving effect to the said notification. They also claimed a direction or order to the opponents directing them to cancel or withdraw the impugned notification. These two petitions were heard by the High Court along with other companion matters in which the same points were raised, and in the result the High Court dismissed the petitions. It held that S. 6(2) was intra vires and the impugned notification was legal and valid. The appellants then applied for and obtained a certificate from the High Court, and it is with the said certificate that they have come to this Court by their two appeals.
2. At the outset it may be relevant to state that, subsequent to t he decision under appeal, in 1956 the Act has been substantially amended and now S. 3 of the new Act provides for the rent and its maximum and minimum. Shortly stated this section incorporates the provisions of the impugned notification and adds to it the further provision that in no case shall the rent be less than twice the assessment. In consequence the point raised in the present appeals has ceased to be of any importance; at best it may affect just a few cases between landlords and tenants that may be pending in respect of the rent payable by the latter to the former for a period prior to 1956. At the time when the certificate was granted the questions raised by the appellants were undoubtedly of general importance.
3. We would first read S. 6 of the Act. Section 6(1) provides that notwithstanding any agreement, usage, decree or order of a court or any law the maximum rent payable by a tenant for the lease of any land shall not in the case of an irrigated land exceed one-fourth and in the case of any other land exceed one-third of the crop of such land or its value as determined in the prescribed manner. Section 6(2) provides that the Provincial Government may by notification in the official gazette fix a lower rate of the maximum rent payable by the tenants of lands situate in any p
