2016 Supreme(SC) 857

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.
Cheviti Venkanna Yadav – Appellants
Versus
State of Telangana and Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13604 OF 2015 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 21703 OF 2015) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13613 OF 2015 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 26459 OF 2015) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13604 OF 2015 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 21703 OF 2015)
Decided On : 24-10-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
Legislature, after coming into existence, has the competence to enact any law retrospectively or prospectively within the constitutional parameters.
Legislature cannot, by way of an enactment, declare a decision of the court as erroneous or a nullity. It can rectify, through an amendment, a defect in law noticed in the enactment and even highlighted in the decision of the court.
Appointment of Chairman, Vice Chairman and Members of Market Committee from amongst its members not through any selection process do not get any vested right to the post. The term ‘appointment’ rightly substituted by ‘nomination’.
Market committee and special market committee having different composition, function and purpose fall in two different categories. Article 14 not attracted.

Headnote:(a) Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets (Amendment) Act, 2015 – Section 5(3) – Validity – Legislative competence – Legislature, after coming into existence, has the competence to enact any law retrospectively or prospectively within the constitutional parameters. (Para 23)

       AIR 1970 SC 1742 – Relied upon

       (b) Interpretation of statute – Valdating statute – Validity – Constitutional law – Separation of powers – Legislature cannot, by way of an enactment, declare a decision of the court as erroneous or a nullity – It can rectify, through an amendment, a defect in law noticed in the enactment and even highlighted in the decision of the court – It will have a curative and neutralizing effect – Its purpose is not to overrule the decision of the court or encroach upon the judicial turf, but simply enact a fresh law with retrospective effect to alter the foundation and meaning of the legislation and to remove the base on which the judgment is founded – Does not amount to statutory overruling by the legislature – Ihe earlier decision of the court becomes non-existent and unenforceable for interpretation of the new legislation. (Para 29)

       (1969) 2 SCC 283; (1994) 6 SCC 77; (2009) 13 SCC 165; (1997) 1 SCC 326 – Relied upon

       (1984) 4 SCC 429 – Referred

       (c) Interpretation of statute – An amendment with retrospective effect – To give effect to judicial pronouncement – Within competency of the legislature – Motive inconsequential – Cannot be termed as colourable exercise of power. (Para 30)

       (2004) 1 SCC 712 – Relied upon

       (d) Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets (Amendment) Act, 2015 – Section 5(3) and 6(5) – Amendment with retrospective effect – Word appointed substituted by nominated – Chairman, Vice Chairman and Members of Market Committee were ‘appointed’ from amongst its members as per unamended provision – Such functionaries neither elected nor appointed by any kind of selection – Such appointment cannot be equated to a post under service jurisprudence – No vested right to the post accruing – Pre-amendment, Members and functionaries having fixed term tenure removable anytime under certain circumstances – Tenure reduced to 3 years – They can still be removed during the tenure – Termination of nomination is not unconstitutional. (Para 31, 32)

       (1993) 2 SCC 242 – Relied upon

       (e) Constitution of India – Article 14 – Market committee and special market committee – Having different composition, function and purpose – Falling in two different categories – Article 14 not attracted. (Para 33)

       Facts of the case:

       The petitioners in the said writ petition were appointed as Chairmen of Agricultural Market Committees by the State for a term of 3 years.

       After formation of the new State the Governor of Telangana promulgated Ordinance No. 1 of 2014 to amend the Act and by virtue of the said Ordinance Section 5 of the Act underwent two major changes. The total number of members in the market committee was reduced from 18 to 14 and the term of the market committee was reduced from 3 to 2 years. It was also provided in the Ordinance that notwithstanding anything contained in the principal Act, the existing members shall cease to hold office and the Government would be competent to appoint person or persons, to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the market committee.

       The Ordinance and the consequent order passed on that basis were challenged in a batch of Writ Petitions. The High Court came to hold that the removal of all of the petitioners vide clause-3 by way of legislative action was discriminatory as future appointees in the office of the members, Vice-Chairmen and Chairmen were liable to be removed or denuded of their power under the existing provisions as provided under Sections 5, 6, 6(A) & 6(B) of the said Act whereas the writ petitioners were sought to be removed prematurely taking away the procedural safeguard established by law. It opined that the amended provision invited the frown of Article 14 of the Constitution.

       After the judgment of the High Court, the Government of Telangana issued Ordinance No. 1 of 2015 dated 13.02.2015 to amend Section 5 of the Act. The Ordinance was challenged before the High Court.

       Before the High Court the principal challenge was to Section 5 of the Act whereby the term of the market committee was reduced from three years to one year by giving retrospective effect in the Amendment Act.

       Division Bench of the High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets (Amendment) Act, 2015.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

       Result: Appeals dismissed.