Back
1961 Supreme(AP) 56
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : JAGMOHAN REDDY
Datla Vissam Raju - Appellant
Versus
Bandaru Gopala Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 03-31-61
The rule-making power under a statute does not delegate to the Government the essential legislative function that has been exercised by the legislature itself. The subsidiary and ancillary powers alone, such as for instance the implementation of the will of the Legislature controlled amply by the provision to lay the rules on the table of the house with the power to amend or modify them has been delegated.
Headnote:
ANDHRA INAMS (ABOLITION AND CONVERSION INTO RYOTWARI) ACT, 1956 - Rule 16 of the Rules framed under the Act - Validity - Scope and ambit of the rule - Whether the rule is ultra vires the Act - Whether the rule offends Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution - Held, that the rule is intra vires the Act and does not offend Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner purchased land in a Court-sale held in execution of a mortgage decree obtained by one Sattriraju Ramachandra Row against the owner of the land and mortgagor Kilambi Ramavataram. After the petitioner purchased the land, he obtained a sale certificate dated 6th January, 1960. It is alleged that while the petitioner has applied for the sale certificate in order to get possession of the land, the 1st respondent Bandaru Gopala Row filed a petition before the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, the 2nd respondent, in I. A. No. 1 of 1960 purporting to be an application under sections 3 and 7 of the Andhra Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXXVII of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and obtained the impugned injunction order dated 2nd January, 1960, by which the petitioner was restrained from interfering with the possession of the 1st respondent or taking delivery of the property through court in O. S. No. 149 of 1958 or otherwise till the disposal of I. A. No. 1 of 1960 or until further orders. This order of injunction purports to have been passed against the mortgagor R. Ramavataram also. The order was said to have been passed pursuant to rule 16 made under the Act by G. O. Ms. No. 2106, Revenue, dated 15th November, 1958. It is this rule that is challenged as being made beyond the rule-making power of the Government, as it cannot be said to be one made for any of the purposes of the Act and is further hit by Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the rule is intra vires the Act and does not offend Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. The Court observed that the rule-making power does not delegate to the Government the essential legislative function that has been exercised by the legislature itself. The subsidiary and ancillary powers alone, such as for instance the implementation of the will of the Legislature controlled amply by the provision to lay the rules on the table of the house with the power to amend or modify them has been delegated.
Issues: 1. Whether rule 16 of the Rules framed under the Andhra Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 is ultra vires the Act? 2. Whether the rule offends Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The rule-making power does not delegate to the Government the essential legislative function that has been exercised by the legislature itself. The subsidiary and ancillary powers alone, such as for instance the implementation of the will of the Legislature controlled amply by the provision to lay the rules on the table of the house with the power to amend or modify them has been delegated. 2. The rule is intra vires the Act and does not offend Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.
( 2 ) A few facts may be stated to understand the contentions of the parties. The petitioner purchased Acres 4-25 cents in Revision S. No. 99/1 situated in Pentapadu, in West Godavari District, in a Court-sale held by the Dt. Munsif, Kowur, West godavari District, on 19th November, 1959, for Rs. 7,400. This Court-sale was held in execution petition No. 447 of 1959 in execution of a mortgage decree obtained by one sattriraju Ramachandra Row against the owner of the land and mortgagor Kilambi ramavataram. After the petitioner purchased the land, he obtained a sale certificate dated 6th January, 1960. It is alleged that while the petitioner has applied for the sale certificate in order to get possession of the land, the 1st respondent Bandaru gopala Row filed a petition before the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, the 2nd respondent, in I. A. No. 1 of 1960 purporting to be an application under sections 3 and 7 of the andhra Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXXVII of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and obtained the impugned injunction order dated 2nd January, 1960, by which the petitioner was restrained from interfering with the possession of the 1st respondent or taking delivery of the peroperty through court in O. S. No. 149 of 1958 or otherwise till the disposal of I. A. No. 1 of 1960 or until further orders. This order of injunction purports to have been passed against the mortgagor R. Ramavataram also. The order was said to have been passed pursuant to rule 16 made under the Act by G. O. Ms. No. 2106, Revenue, dated 15th November, 1958. It is this rule that is challenged as being made beyond the rule-making power of the Government, as it cannot be said to be one made for any of the purposes of the Act and is further hit by Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
( 3 ) IT is contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the power to issue an order of injunction is a special and specific power which can only be conferred on a court or a tribunal by a statute ; that it is not a power which can be granted by any rule framed under section 17 of the Act under which the rule-making power was reserved to the Government; that the power to grant injunction is an extraordinary power and not one even inherent in a Court by any provisions of the Act on the authorities on which specified powers and jurisdiction were conferred under sections, such as 3, 5, 7, etc. , of the Act ; and that when section 13 of the Act made certain specified provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to the proceedings under the Act leaving the particular provision relating to grant of injunctions outside its purview, it is not open to the Government to enlarge the power. It is, therefore, argued that the impugned rule and the G. O. granting an undefined, unrestricted and unabridged power of issuing an injunction are too wide, vague, arbitrary and discriminatory. Further, they do not lay down any principles of policy or guidance and consequently the rule offends Article 14 as well as 19 of the Constitution.
( 4 ) LEARNED Advocate-General, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner has not questioned the vires of the Act either on the ground of incompetence of the legislature or on the ground that the operative clauses affect the fundamental rights. He submits that the Act purports to create vested rights in property, that is, it is not merely a case of a legislation declaring the rights, but it confers rights to grant
