1988 Supreme(AP) 425

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.RAMASWAMY
R.E.S.JUNIOR COLLEGE, MYDUKUR, CUDDAPAH DIST., SECRETARY AND CORRESPONDENT K.KAMASUBBA REDDY - Appellant
Versus
R.VAIDYANATHA IYER, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD - Respondent
Decided On : 09-26-88

The Legislature is competent to make the law or amend or validate the law declared by the court either prospectively or retrospectively.

Headnote:

K. RAMA SWAMY, J. ( 1 ) THIS bunch of cases give birth to constitutional questions of farreaching consequences entwined with contempt for disobedience to writs of mandamus issued by this Court.

Fact of the Case:

The Andhra Pradesh Education Act (Act 1 of 1982) came into force. The Government issued orders directing that the schools started on or after April 1, 1977 and were continuing as on September 1, 1985, are directed to be admitted to grant-in-aid subject to the conditions mentioned therein. Similarly, for the additional sections started by the aided schools or posts created, the benefit of grant-in-aid was accorded in G. O. Ms. No. 344, Education, dated July 22, 1985. Similarly, to the colleges started between the above period, directions were issued in g. O. Ms. No. 424, Education, dated September 19, 1985 to admit all the colleges to grant-in-aid subject to the conditions stated therein. The petitioners (Colleges) claim that despite their fulfilling the conditions, they were not admitted to grant-in-aid constraining them to approach this Court by filing the writ petitions. The facts in all these cases are same or similar. Therefore, the facts in C. C. No. 284/88 are sufficient to cover the grounds in other cases too. The petitioner filed W. P. No. 17985/87 seeking Mandamus directing the Government to admit it to grant-in-aid. The Government resisted the claim. This Court, by judgment dated January 21, 1988, allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to admit the petitioner institution to grant-in-aid within two months from the date of receipt of that judgment which was admittedly received on February 12, 1988 and two months time expired by April 11, 1988. The Contempt application was filed on June 17, 1988 and came up for admission on June 21, 1988, complaining that despite the expiry of two months, the respondent took no action to comply with the order and thereby he deliberately or wilfully disobeyed the orders of this Court, punishable under Section 12 of the contempt of Courts Act, 1971. On issue of notice on admission, the respondent, after prolonged ten adjoumments, filed the counter-affidavit stating that the Government constituted a high level Committee in G. O. Rt. No. 220, Education, dated February 24, 1988 consisting of two Vice-Chancellors, secretary (Services); Secretary (Finance) Directors of School and Higher Educations to look into the pending cases or any cases that may be referred to find whether the institutions have fulfilled the conditions prescribed. On receipt of the report with recommendation the institutions would be admitted and given grant-in-aid. The Andhra Pradesh Private educational Institution Grant-in-aid (Regulation) Ordinance (Ordinance 11 of 1988) was promulgm by the Governor in exercise of the legislative power under Article 213 of the Constitution, published on June 30, 1988, effective from July 22, 1985 which was replaced by the Andhra Pradesh educational Institutions Grant-in-aid (Regulation) Act (Act 22 of 19881, for short "the Act", came into force from August 29, 1988 declaring in Section 3 that no private educational institution other than a college established after April 1, 1977 and existing on September 1, 1985 and no private college established after April 1, 1977 and existing on March 1, 1985 shall be entitled to receive any grunt-in-aid unless the conditions prescribed are fulfilled and the Committee constituted in G. O. Ms. No. 220 dated February 24, 1988 recommends to admit the institution to grant-in-aid. Sections 4 and 5 are not relevant. Section 6 declares that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, etc. Non-obstante clause has been engrafted in Section 7 prohibiting the Court to entertain the proceedings or enforcing payment thereof since the matter is covered by the Act, the respondent has not committed any contempt.

Finding of the Court:

The Andhra Pradesh State Legislature is competent to make the Act to go into the legality of the Court orders ; prohibit individuals from laying any suit or other proceeding in a Court claiming payment of grant-in-aid and equally prohibit enforcement thereof and reopen the judgments or orders passed by this court. The Legislature is competent to make the law or amend or validate the law declared by the court either prospectively or retrospectively. The court decision always binds the parties unless it is reversed on appeal or reviewed or fundamentally altered and in the altered circumstances, the decision could not have been rendered even in the first instance. The Legislature has no power to make a law declaring or nullifying the decision of a competent court invalid or ineffective and the interpretation of the law shall be otherwise than as declared bv the court either directly or indirectly without removing the base, on which the judgment or order is rendered. The base is the construction put up as found in the judgment on a pre-existing legislative enactment or a statutory rule by the court contrary to what is purported to have been intended by the Legislature. By employing appropriate language expressly and clearly mentioning in the legislation, the base should be removed and thereby the Legislature could prospectively or retrospectively amend or validate or both by a valid law since the legislative competance is sine quo non and always the prime factor. If the Legislature lacks competance, then even the amendment or validation prospectively or retrospectively always remains to be void, unconstitutional or invalid. No Legislature has power to ask the instrumentalities of the state to disobey or disregard the decision given by courts. Such a law is a direct inroad into the judicial power of the State nor the Legislature is competent to declare indirectly that the decision is open to review by a new law. In such an event it is a naked encroachment into judicial power and amounts to legislative overruling a judicial decision in exercise of legislative power, a negation of constitutional scheme.

Issues: Whether the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature is competent to make the Act to go into the legality of the Court orders ; prohibit individuals from laying any suit or other proceeding in a Court claiming payment of grant-in-aid and equally prohibit enforcement thereof and reopen the judgments or orders passed by this court.

Ratio Decidendi: The Legislature is competent to make the law or amend or validate the law declared by the court either prospectively or retrospectively. The court decision always binds the parties unless it is reversed on appeal or reviewed or fundamentally altered and in the altered circumstances, the decision could not have been rendered even in the first instance. The Legislature has no power to make a law declaring or nullifying the decision of a competent court invalid or ineffective and the interpretation of the law shall be otherwise than as declared bv the court either directly or indirectly without removing the base, on which the judgment or order is rendered. The base is the construction put up as found in the judgment on a pre-existing legislative enactment or a statutory rule by the court contrary to what is purported to have been intended by the Legislature. By employing appropriate language expressly and clearly mentioning in the legislation, the base should be removed and thereby the Legislature could prospectively or retrospectively amend or validate or both by a valid law since the legislative competance is sine quo non and always the prime factor. If the Legislature lacks competance, then even the amendment or validation prospectively or retrospectively always remains to be void, unconstitutional or invalid. No Legislature has power to ask the instrumentalities of the state to disobey or disregard the decision given by courts. Such a law is a direct inroad into the judicial power of the State nor the Legislature is competent to declare indirectly that the decision is open to review by a new law. In such an event it is a naked encroachment into judicial power and amounts to legislative overruling a judicial decision in exercise of legislative power, a negation of constitutional scheme.

Final Decision: The contempt cases are dismissed.