SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(SC) 86

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranjan Gogoi, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JJ.
S.T. SADIQ – APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3962 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3963 OF 2007
Decided On : 04-02-2015

IMPORTANT POINTS
Legislative function consists in “making” law and not in “declaring” what the law shall be. Legislature may alter the very basis of a decision given by a court by making law retrospectively but Legislature is not at liberty to annul judgments of courts.
Legislation violative of Article 14 deserves tom be struck down.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 245 and 141 – Legislative function consists in “making” law and not in “declaring” what the law shall be – However, legislature may alter the very basis of a decision given by a court by making law retrospectively – Otherwise, Legislature not at liberty to annul judgments of courts. (Para 12)

       (1971) 3 SCC 1; 1985 (1) SCR 825; (1993) 2 SCC 363; 1993 Supp (1) SCC 96; (1995) 6 SCC 16; (1996) 2 SCC 449 – Relied upon

       (b) Kerala Cashew Factories Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1985 – Section 6 – Amendment not retrospectivity to the provision – Non obstante clause wiping out “any judgment” – Secondly it refers to the schedule containing only 10 cashew factories instead of 46 that were ordered to be handed back – Section 6 thus directly seeks to upset a final judgment inter-parties – Bad in law – Held unconstitutional. (Para 12)

       (1994) 4 SCC 269 – Relied upon

       (1971) 3 SCC 1; (1978) 2 SCC 50; (2004) 12 SCC 588; 2014 (6) SCALE 380 – Relied upon

       (c) Kerala Cashew Factories Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1985 – Section 6 – 46 cashew nut factories – Similarly situated – State also treating them alike by issuing common notices to all – Amendment discriminating among similarly situated cashew nut factories – In all 46 factories were to be handed over to the owners but the schedule shows only 10 factories – Violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India – Deserves to be struck down. (Para 13)

       Facts of the case:

       These petitions raise questions as to the constitutional validity of the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Act, 1974, which has been placed in the 9th Schedule to the Constitution of India, being entry 148 thereof.

       This Act came into force on 19th November, 1974 and Section 3 thereof enabled the State Government to acquire in public interest cashew factories under certain circumstances.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment is not sustainable.

       Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

R.F. NARIMAN, J.

1. These petitions raise questions as to the constitutional validity of the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”), which has been placed in the 9th Schedule to the Constitution of India, being entry 148 thereof. This Act came into force on 19th November, 1974 and Section 3 thereof enabled the State Government to acquire in public interest cashew factories under certain circumstances. Section 3 is set out hereunder:

3. Order of Acquisition:-

(1) The Government may, if they are satisfied –

(a) that the occupier of a cashew factory does not conform to the provisions of law relating to safety, conditions of service or fixation and payment of wages to the workers of the factory; or

(b) that raw cashewnuts allotted to a cashew factory by the Cashew Corporation of India are not being processed in the factory to which allotment has been made or that such nuts are being transferred to any other cashew factory; or

(c) that there has been large scale unemployment, other than by way of lay off or retrenchment, of the workers of a cashew factory by order published in the Gazette declare that the cashew factory shall stand transferred to, and vest in the Government.

Provided that before making a declaration under this sub-section in respect of a cashew factory, the Government shall give the occupier of the factory and the owner of the factory where he is not the occupier, a notice of their intention to take action under this subsection and the grounds therefore and consider the objections that may be preferred in pursuance of such notice.

Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, the expressions “lay off” and “retrenchment” shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).

(2) The notice referred to in the proviso to subsection (1) shall also be published in two newspapers published in the State of Kerala, and such publication shall be deemed to be sufficient notice to the occupier, to the owner where he is not the occupier and to all other persons interested in the cashew factory.

(3) On the making of a declaration under subsection (1), the cashew factory to which the declaration relates, together with all machinery, other accessories and other movable properties as were immediately before the appointed day in the ownership, possession power or control of the occupier in relation to the factory and all books of accounts, registers and other documents relating thereto shall stand transferred to, and vest in, the Government.”

2. Identical notices were sent between 1984 and 1986 to 10 cashew factories under Section 3 of the Acquisition Act, and the said factories were acquired under the Act pursuant to those notices. Similar notices stating identical grounds were sent to 36 other cashew factories in 1988 by which the said factories were also acquired under the said Act. A specimen notice is set out hereinbelow.

“No.31033/K3/84/Id 19.9.1985

NOTICE

Notice under rule 3 of the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Rules, 1974.

WHEREAS it has been brought to the notice of the Government that in respect of Cashew Factory No.AP.11 located in Eruva, Kayamkulam, in Karthikappally Taluk, Alapuzha District of which Smt. T. Suhara Beevi C/o Masaliar Industries, Kilikolloor, Kollam is the owner and M/s. Janso Exports (Private) Ltd., N.N.C., Estates Vadakkevila P.O., Kollam is the occupier (proposed) there exist grounds as detailed below warranting action under section 3(1) of the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Act, 1974 notice is hereby given to all concerned of the intention of the Government to take action under the above said section of the Act. Interested persons are hereby directed to file their objections, if any, before the Government of Kerala against the proposed action within seven days of the receipt of this notice or the publication of this notice in the newspapers, whichever is earli

































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top