A.N.RAY, K.K.MATHEW, V.R.KRISHNA IYER
Krishna Chandra Gangopadhyaya – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
Judgment
KRISHNA IYER, J.:- The central issue in these petitions deals with the question whether a statute and a rule earlier declared by the Court unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, can be retroactive through fresh validating legislation enacted by the competent legislature. More pointedly, the constitutionality of Rule 20 (2) framed by the Bihar Government under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Act LXVII of 1957) (for short, the Central Act) and the second proviso to S. 10 (2) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for brevity, the Bihar Act) has been challenged on various grounds in the petitions, a validating statute by Parliament transforming them into Central legislation, as will be presently explained. The subject of the litigation is minor minerals and the right of the petitioners adversely affected by the impugned legislation, is to quarry stones etc., on the strength of leases granted to them by erstwhile proprietors whose ownership vested in the State by virtue of the Bihar Act. By the combined operation of the second proviso to Section 10 (2) of the Bihar Act and Rule 20 (2) (framed by the State Government) of the Bihar Minor
explained and followed : West Ramnad Electric Distribution Co. Ltd. v. State of Madras
relied on : Jaora Sugar Mills v. State
JamaharLal v. State of Rajasthan
distinguished : Dy. Commr and Collector, Kamrup v. Durga Nath Sarma
referred : Baij Nath Kediaa v. State of Bihar
Jagannath v. Authorised Officer, Land Reforms
Hari Singh v. Military Estate Officer
explained : Gwalior Rayon Mills v. Asit. C. S. T.
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.