IMPORTANT PONT
In the absence of any valid ground under Article 14, the Writ Petition under Article 32 itself is not maintainable.

Headnote:(a) Constitutional validity of statures – Well settled that a Statute can be invalidated or held unconstitutional on limited grounds viz., on the ground of the incompetence of the Legislature which enacts it and on the ground that it breaches or violates any of the fundamental rights or other Constitutional Rights and on no other grounds – It is well within the Legislative power of the State to respond to the undisputed and disturbing facts which had enormous financial implication on the State’s Finances to enact the Law with an object of remedying the unsatisfactory state of affairs which were known to the Legislature. (Paras 15 and 17)
       (1996) 3 SCC 709; (2006) 7 SCC 1 – Relied upon
       (b) Constitutional Validity – Validity of the Legislation is not to be judged by what is stated in an affidavit filed on behalf of the State – It should fall or stand on the strength of its provisions. (Para 23)
       (1983) 1 SCC 147 – Relied upon
       (c) Constitution of India – Article 32 – In the absence of any valid ground under Article 14, the Writ Petition under Article 32 itself is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. (Para 26)
       Facts of the case:
       These writ petitions call in validity of Sections 2, 3, 5 and 6 of The Goa (Prohibition of Further Payment and Recovery of Rebate Benefits) Act, 2002
       Finding of the Court:
       The intent and object of the State Legislature in enacting the Act impugned is clear and unassailable. The Act is not unconstitutional.
       Result : Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

H.L. Dattu, J. —

The above writ petitions are filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, inter alia calling in question the vires and Constitutional validity of “The Goa (Prohibition of Further Payment and Recovery of Rebate Benefits) Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) enacted by the Legislature of the State of Goa. The petitioners seek a declaration from this court that the Act is ultra vires of the Constitution of India and in the alternative seek a limited declaration that Sections 2,3,5 and 6 of the Act are unconstitutional and liable to be struck down.

2)The Act is attacked as unconstitutional mainly on the following grounds:

That it seeks to nullify a judgment of this Court dated 13.02.2001 affirming the view taken by High Court of Bombay Goa Bench, in its judgment dated 21.01.1999.

That it seeks to give effect to the decision of the High Court of Bombay dated 19/24th April 2001, which judgment has the effect of over ruling the judgment of this Court dated 13.02.2001.

That it seeks to give effect to the judgment of High Court of Bombay Panaji Bench, dated 19/24th April 2001, when the said judgment is the subject matter of appeal before this Court in several Special Leave Petitions and thus seeks to frustrate the rights of the petitioners herein under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

That it seeks to take away the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

That it is contrary to plethora of judgments of this Court.

That as an Explanatory Memorandum and the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act relies upon the decision of the High Court of Bombay Panaji Bench, rendered on 19/24th April 2001 which held the Notifications dated 15.5.1996 and 1.8.1996 were issued without complying with the requirements of Article 166 (3) of the Constitution of India, when the very judgment is under appeal before this Court and the State without getting a Judgment rendered by this Court and frustrating adjudication by this Court has passed the Act impugned.

That the Act does not seek to validate any action which has been held to be invalid by any Court of Law, but only seeks to nullify the judgment of this Court [under Section 2 of the Act].

That the Act under Section 3 gives power to the State to recover rebate already given to consumer like petitioners, which grant has already been upheld by the High Court by its judgment dated 21.1.1999 and affirmed by this Court by its judgment dated 13.2.2001.

That the Act is unconstitutional because of non-application of mind, as Section 5 thereof speaks of consequences of non- refund and Section 2 which prohibits further payments.

That the Act seeks to nullify a judgment of this Court and to give effect to judgment of High Court which has the effect of overruling the judgment of this Court, inasmuch as, the law of validation as settled by this Court in a catena of decisions stipulates that the Legislature is not competent to nullify a judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction except where the judgment is rendered by a Court of law on the basis of any invalidity or illegality in the Act because of which the Statute or Act is declared invalid, in which event the Legislature is Competent to enact a validating Act by removing the basis of that invalidity or illegality in the earlier Statute. If the Legislature chooses to enact a law only for the purpose of nullifying a judgment that the same is impermissible.

3)The respondent - State of Goa has joined issues with petitioners andhas filed a detailed Counter-Affidavit, inter alia, in support of the constitutionality of the impugned Act.

4)The State in its Counter-Affidavit after setting out the factual background leading to the issue of the Notifications dated 15.05.1996 and 01.08.1996 and the filing of Writ Petition No. 316 of 1998 and the judgment of the High Court of Bombay Panaji Bench therein, has contended, that, the State deemed it expedient not only t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 398

IMPORTANT PONTIn the absence of any valid ground under Article 14, the Writ Petition under Article 32 itself is not maintainable.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT PONT
In the absence of any valid ground under Article 14, the Writ Petition under Article 32 itself is not maintainable.