IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Shah J.C. and Gokhale B.N. , JJ.
Appellants: Padmakar Balkrishna
Vs.
Respondent: State of Bombay and Ors.
Special Civil Appln. No. 290 of 1957
Decided On: 31.01.1957
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: R.A. Jahagirdar and M.V. Paranjape, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Adv. General, i/b., Little and Co., Attorneys and R.M. Kantawalla, Adv.
STATES REORGANISATION ACT - VALIDITY - BOMBAY MUNICIPAL (FURTHER EXTENSION OF LIMITS AND SCHEDULE BBA) (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1956 - GREATER BOMBAY LAWS AND THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT (DECLARATION OF LIMITS) (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1956 - CONSTITUTIONALITY - INDIRECT ELECTIONS - ARTICLE 170 - ARTICLE 4(1) AND (2) - INTERPRETATION - TRANSITIONAL PROVISION - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a permanent resident of Goregaon, challenged the validity of certain provisions of the States Re-organisation Act (37 of 1956) and the Bombay Municipal (Further Extension of Limits and Schedule BBA) (Amendment) Act, 1956, and the Greater Bombay Laws and the Bombay High Court (Declaration of Limits) (Amendment) Act, 1956, claiming that the Bombay Legislative Assembly was illegally constituted and the Acts were invalid.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Bombay Legislative Assembly was not illegally constituted, as the additional members from transferred areas were included as a transitional provision under Section 28 of the States Reorganisation Act till general elections were held for the reorganised States. The Court also held that the provision for indirect elections from electoral colleges in the Kutch area under Sub-section (4) of Section 28 was not void as being inconsistent with Article 170 of the Constitution, as Article 4(1) and (2) of the Constitution empowered Parliament to make laws that may be inconsistent with the Constitution, including provisions for representation in Parliament and State Legislatures.
Issues: 1. Whether the Bombay Legislative Assembly was illegally constituted due to the inclusion of additional members from transferred areas. 2. Whether the provision for indirect elections from electoral colleges in the Kutch area under Sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the States Reorganisation Act was void as being inconsistent with Article 170 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 28 of the States Reorganisation Act made a transitional provision for the inclusion of members from transferred areas in the Legislative Assemblies of the reorganised States till general elections were held. This provision was valid and did not render the Bombay Legislative Assembly illegally constituted. 2. Article 4(1) and (2) of the Constitution empowered Parliament to make laws that may be inconsistent with the Constitution, including provisions for representation in Parliament and State Legislatures. Therefore, the provision for indirect elections from electoral colleges in the Kutch area under Sub-section (4) of Section 28 was not void as being inconsistent with Article 170 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The Court discharged the rule issued against the State of Bombay, upholding the validity of the impugned provisions and Acts.
1. In this application the petitioner Padmakar Balkrishna Samant has sought to challenge the validity of certain provisions of the States Re-organisation Act (37 of 1956). The petitioner claims to be a permanent resident of Goregaon, without the limits of the Bombay Municipal Corporation, in the Taluka of Borivali, District Thana. The petitioner says that Goregaon was declared to be a village within the meaning of Section 4 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. 1923, and that the said village had a panchayat consisting of 15 elected members, that about 25000 persons are residing in the village and that the panchayat 1ms a revenue of about two lacs of rupees per annum and that the Goregaon Village Panchayat is the biggest and the most progressive village panchayati within the State of Bombay. The petitioner further stated that under authority conferred upon the State of Bombay by an enactment entitled the Bombay Municipal (Further Extension of Limits and Schedule BBA ) (Amendment) Act, 1956, the State of Bombay is seeking to enforce the provisions of the said Act by issuing a notification in that behalf. The petitioner challenges the competence of the State of Bombay to issue a notification to, bring into operation the Bombay Municipal (Further Extension of Limits and Schedule BBA (Amendment) ) Act, 58 of 1956, and the Greater Bombay Laws and the Bombay High Court (Declaration of Limits) (Amendment) Act 57 of 1356, and claims a writ of mandamus or a suitable writ or order or direction restraining the State of Bombay from enforcing the provisions of the said Bombay Acts Nos. 57 and 58 of 1956 and also claims an injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and the Municipal Commissioner of Greater Bombay from acting under the said statutes and a declaration that the village panchayat of the village of Goregaon is still a valid body whose constitution has not undergone abolition by virtue of Section 2 of Bombay Act 58 Of 1956.
2. It may at once be stated that the competency of the State Legislature of Bombay to legislate on the subject-matter of the two Acts is not challenged. It is however contended that the Legislative Assembly of the Bombay State as at present functioning is illegally constituted, and the two Acts are therefore invalid and that the State Government has derived no authority to issue a notification bringing into operation the two Acts.
3. In order to appreciate this argument it may be necessary to set out certain legislative history. The Parliament of India passed the States Reorganisation Act 137 of 1956) on 31-8-1956. By that Act it was intended to provide for the reorganisation of the States and for matters connected therewith. Under that Act, on the appointed day, i.e., 1-11-1956, several territorial readjustments were made in the areas of the States and certain new States were formed. By Section 8 of the Act, as from the appointed day a new State of Bombay comprising territories described therein came into existence. By Section 12 of the Act. as from the appointed day in the First Schedule to the Constitution, Parts A, B and C were substituted by another Schedule and item 4 of the substitution is "the territories specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956" which form the new State of Bombay. By Section 23, the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution was amended as from the appointed day. By Section 28, changes in the composition and allocation of sitting members in the Legislative Assemblies of the States were made. Sub-section (1) of that section provided:
"Where by virtue of the provisions of Part II the whole area of any Assembly constituency in an existing State is transferred to any other existing State or becomes part of a new State other than Kerala,--
(a) that area shall, as from the appointed day, be deemed to form a constituency provided by law for the purpose of elections to the Legislative Assembly of such other existing state or of su
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.