Notifications under the proviso to Section 50 (1) can only extend an existing notification and cannot be issued independently. Retrospective operation of notifications is impermissible.

Headnote:
Bombay Police Act - Validity of Orders - S. 50 - 22-10-1960, 31-5-1961, 18-12-1961, 22/25-6-1962, 31-12-1962, 10-7-1963
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenge the validity of the Orders made by the State Government under S. 50 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The court considers whether the remaining orders are ultra vires of the powers of the State Government.
Finding of the Court:

The court finds that the notifications under the proviso to Section 50 (1) can only extend an existing notification and cannot be issued independently. The court also notes that the entire village cannot be called upon to pay the costs of police force during periods when no notification under Section 50 (1) was in force. The court allows the petition and quashes the impugned Notifications.
Issues: Validity of Orders made under S. 50 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951
Ratio Decidendi: Notifications under the proviso to Section 50 (1) can only extend an existing notification and cannot be issued independently. The entire village cannot be called upon to pay the costs of police force during periods when no notification under Section 50 (1) was in force. Retrospective operation of the notifications is impermissible.
Final Decision: The petition is allowed and the impugned Notifications are quashed.

( 1 ) IN this Writ Petition, under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioners challenge the validity of the Orders made, by the State Government under S. 50 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (Bombay Act XXII of 1951), to be hereinafter referred to as the "act" on 22-10-1960, 31-5-1961, 18-12-1961, 22/25-6-1962, 31-12-1962 and 10-7-1963. But at the time of the hearing of this petition Sri V. S. Mallimath the learned counsel for the petitioners did not challenge the validity of the order dated 22-10-1960. Therefore all that we have to consider is whether the remaining orders are ultra vires of the powers of the State Government as contended by Sri mallimath.

( 2 ) AS per the notification dated 22-10-1960, the Government issued two Orders. They are marked as Exhibit "a" an "b" in the case. They read as follows:

"notification No. HD. 155 PEG 60 dated, Bangalore 22nd October 1960 Assvija 30 Saka Era 1882. Whereas the Government of Mysore is of the opinion that Yakkundi village in Bijapur District is in a disturbed condition and that the conduct of certain sections of the inhabitants of the said village renders it expedient temporarily to employ additional police therein now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (Bombay Act XXII of 1951), as in force in Bombay areas, the Government of Mysore hereby specifies- (a) the Yakkundi Village in Bijapur District as "the disturbance area" in which the additional police of the strength set forth in the Schedule hereto annexed, shall be employed: (b) six months from the date of employment of the said additional Police as the period for which the said additional police shall be employed. "the cost of the said additional police indicated in the Schedule shall be imposed under S. 50 of the said Act.

SCHEDULE

Additional Police Cost

One Civil police Head Constable. Rs. 581,75 per mensem.

One Civil police Constable.

One Armed Head Constable.

Three Armed Police constables.

By Order and the name of the Governor of Mysore.

Sd /-

R. N. Gurav

Under secretary to Government,

Home Department.

"order"

No. HD 155 Peg 60, dated Bangalore 22nd October 1960 ( Asvija 30, Sake Era 1882 ).

Whereas the Government of Mysore have in notification No. HD 155 PEG 60 dated 22nd

October 1960, specified the Yakkundi Village in Bijapur District as "the disturbance area" and have directed the employment of additional police for a period of six months in said disturbance area at the total cost of Rs. 581. 75 np. per mensem under sub-section (1) of S. 50 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (Bombay Act XXII of 1951) as in force in the Bombay area.

(2) Whereas the cost of the said additional police is a tax imposed under S. 50 of said Act and has to be recovered in the manner prescribed in the said section.

(3) Now, therefore in pursuance of Clause (x) of sub-section (3) of S. 50 of the said Act, the Government of Mysore hereby require the Deputy Commissioner of Bijapur District to recover the cost prima facie additional police from all persons except the persons mentioned in paragraph 4 of this order who are inhabitance of the "disturbance area" as an arrear of land revenue and also directs that the cost shall be recovered in proportionate to the land revenue payable by such persons and in the case of inhabitants who are landless, in the disturbance area, shall be liable to pay the cost in the said proportion for all the dependants and servants who have no man of livelihood.

(4) In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (6) of S. 50 of the said Act, the Government of Mysore hereby exempts persons in the service of the government of Mysore central Government or the government of another State, persons in the service of the defence Department and the persons who have suffered lists in the disturbance area, from liability to bear their portion of the cost of the additional police.

By Order and in the name of the Governor of Mysore.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1965 Supreme(Kar) 74

Karnataka High CourtJudges : K.S.Hegde,C.HonniahSIDDAGONDAPPA GURAPPA KOPPAD - AppellantVersusSTATE OF MYSORE - RespondentWrit Petn 1717 Of 1963Decided On : 08/20/1965

Notifications under the proviso to Section 50 (1) can only extend an existing notification and cannot be issued independently. Retrospective operation of notifications is impermissible.

Karnataka High Court
Judges : K.S.Hegde,C.Honniah
SIDDAGONDAPPA GURAPPA KOPPAD - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MYSORE - Respondent
Writ Petn 1717 Of 1963
Decided On : 08/20/1965