SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI, C.J.I., J.M. SHELAT, I.D. DUA AND G.K. MITTER, JJ.
The State of Assam and others, Appellants
Versus
Ka Brhyien Kurkalang and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1162-1173 of 1969, D/- 23-11-1971.
Eastern Bengal and Assam Excise Act, 1910 - Section 2 (2) - Indian Independence Act, 1947 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 244, 275, 244 (2) and 246 - Distil Liquor From Millet - Refusing Renewal of Permit - Challenging Validity Of Regulation - Whether Governor was competent to promulgate Ordinance V of 1952, and to issue impugned notification – Held, Effect of Regulation was that competent legislative authority, in this case Governor, selected certain laws enumerated in Schedule for their being applied to District - It however left to Governor to decide on what date or dates and to which part or parts of District any one or more of them should be extended and brought into force - Regulation itself determined which laws were to be applied in District - Only matter left to Governor was time when and area to which they or any one or more of them should be extended - Regulation came into force at once and continued to remain in force even after District Council was set up; so also power thereunder conferred on Governor to extend them either to District as a whole or to any part or parts thereof - Power of Governor to legislate ended when District Council was constituted - But power conferred thereunder on Governor to bring into force laws set out in Schedule continued and would continue so long as Regulation remained on Statute book - That being position, notification, though issued after power under paragraph 19 (1) (b) had ceased, was validly made as power to issue such a notification under Regulation did not lapse since Regulation itself continued to operate - High Court, therefore, was in error in holding that notification was incompetent or that for that reason Excise Duty was not in force and that therefore, respondents could not be prohibited from distiling liquor without a valid licence under Act from a proper authority - Appeals allowed.
Judgment
SHELAT, J.:- These appeals, under certificate, arise out of the writ petitions filed by the respondents in the High Court of Asam and Nagaland, challenging the validity of the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Districts (Application of Laws) Regulation, V of 1952 promulgated by the Governor of Assam under paragraph 19 (1) (b) of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, the notification, dated September 8, 1961, issued thereunder extending thereby the Eastern Bengal and Assam Excise Act, 1910 to the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District, and the order of the Deputy Commissioner refusing renewal of a permit authorising the respondents to distil liquor from millet on the ground that there could not be a renewal of the original permit as that permit was issued by one who had no authority to issue it. The High Court allowed the writ petitions on the ground that the Governor had issued the said Regulation under the provisions of paragraph 19 (1)(b) which are transitional, that is, until a District Council for the area was constituted, which was done in June 1952, that once such a council was set up, he could not exercise the power under paragraph 19, that any regulation made thereunder could remain effective until that period only, and that therefore, the notification issued in September 1961, extending the Excise Act had no effect. Consequently, there was, according to the High Court, no Excise Act validly in force in the said District under which the respondents could be prevented from distilling liquor. The appeals, thus, raise the question of interpretation of paragraph 19 (1) (b) and the scope and extent of the power of the Governor thereunder.
2. Prior to August 15, 1947, the areas originally known as Khasi States were ruled by Chiefs with certian limited powers under special relations with the British Government as the paramount power. The paramountcy having lapsed on the passing of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, those chiefs acceded to the Dominion of India under Instruments of Accession under which the existing administrative arrangements were continued. Later on, the Khasi States were merged in the State of Assam as specified in the First Schedule to the Constitution, and such of the powers which the Chiefs possessed till then came to an end. However, under Articles 244 and 275 read with the Sixth Schedule, certain special provisions were made regarding the governance of these areas despite their forming part of the State of Assam. The Khasi States were joined with the Khasi-Jaintia Hills District to form one district to be thereafter called the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District and were placed in Para A of the Table appended to the Sixth Schedule. We are not concerned with the subsequent constitutional developments in regard to these areas as the notification challenged by the respondents extending the Excise Act, 1910 to them was issued in 1961, and the order of refusal by the Deputy Commissioner to permit the respondents to distil liquor was passed on the extension of that Act by that notification.
3. As aforesaid, the administration of the tribal areas in the state of Assam is governed, by virtue of Articles 244 and 275 of the Constitution, by the provisions contained in the Sixth Schedule. A perusal of Article 244 (2) and the Sixth Schedule shows that though the areas included in Para A of the Table from part of the State of Assam and, therefore, within the executive authority of that State and the legislative competence of both Parliament and the State Legislature extends over these area under Arts. 245 and 246, a special administrative set up for the tribal people, residing in these areas, has been set up with a view to establish a limited autonomy in view of the special characteristics of the hills people.
4. The scheme of the Sixth Schedule is that paragraphs 1 to 17 apply to areas mentioned in Part A of the Table and paragraph 18 applies to areas mentioned in Part B of the Table. Paragraph 19 contains transition
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.