1972 Supreme(Pat) 48

PATNA HIGH COURT
S.N.P.Singh and Akbar Husain JJ.
Dhalbhum Trades And Industries Ltd.
Versus
Union Of India
Civil Writ No. 410 of 1971 ;
Decided On : MARCH 14, 1972

Parliament cannot validate an Act passed by a State Legislature which has been held to be invalid on the ground that the State Legislature did not have the legislative competence to deal with the topic covered by it.

Headnote:

Bihar Land Reforms Laws (Regulating Mines and Minerals) Validation Act, 1969 - Constitutional validity - Challenge - Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Bihar Act 30 of 1950) - Amendment by Bihar Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1964 (Bihar Ordinance No. 3 of 1964) - Addition of second proviso to Sec.10 (2) - Bihar Land Reforms (Amendment) Act (Bihar Act 4 of 1965) - Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964 - Amendment of Rule 20 (2) - Bihar Minor Mineral Concession (First Amendment) Rules, 1964 - Supreme Court in Baij Nath Kedias case (AIR 1970 SC 1436) - Held that Bihar Legislature had no jurisdiction to enact the second proviso to Sec.10 (2) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Parliament enacted the impugned Validation Act of 1969 - Challenge - Whether the impugned Act was beyond the legislative competence of Parliament and as such it is void - Whether Parliament was competent to make a law of its own, but it could not validate a State law which the State Legislature was not competent to enact, because the effect of such validation would be to confer legislative competence on the State Legislature in regard to a field outside its jurisdiction - Whether, on a fair and reasonable construction of Sec.2 of the impugned Act, the argument of Mr. Ghose that it purports simply to validate invalid State laws and rules is justified - Whether Parliament has simply validated the State laws which the State Legislature was not competent to enact - Whether Parliament made the legislation itself by reference adopting the laws set out in the Schedule.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a joint stock company with limited liability, incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, having its registered office at Calcutta and its local office at Ghatsila in the district of Singhbhum, challenged the validity of the Bihar Land Reforms Laws (Regulating Mines and Minerals) Validation Act, 1969 (Act 42 of 1969) -- hereinafter to be called the "Validation Act". The petitioner further made a prayer- (a) for quashing the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum, Chaibassa, communicated to it under memo No. 4094/M, dated the 22nd of September, 1970, a copy whereof is annexure "10" to the writ petition; (b) for restraining the respondents from taking action under the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964, read with Bihar Act 4 of 1965, Bihar Act 6 of 1965 and the Central Act 42 of 1969; and (c) for directing the respondents to take steps for getting dismissed District Certificate (Mining) Case No. 521 of 1970-71, pending in the Court of the District Certificate Officer, Chaibassa.

Finding of the Court:

On a fair and reasonable construction of Sec.2 of the impugned Act, it is clear that Parliament made the legislation itself by reference adopting the laws set out in the Schedule. Parliament, instead of making elaborate provisions in respect of the matters covered by the invalid State law, including the law with regard to minor minerals, as contained in the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Sec.10 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, thought it convenient to make a compendious provision as is contained in Sec.2 of the impugned Act. In substance. Sec.2 of the impugned Act declared that the material provisions of the State Acts as well as the provisions of rules made thereunder, notifications issued, rents and royalties realised shall be deemed to have been validly made, issued or realised at all material times under the impugned Act. The authority under which the rents or royalties would be deemed to have been validly recovered would be the authority of Parliament inasmuch as all the relevant sections, notifications, orders and rules have, in clear terms, been adopted by the impugned Parliamentary statute itself. Mr. Ghose, therefore, is not correct in his submission that Parliament has simply validated the State laws which the State Legislature was not competent to enact. On the contrary, on a reasonable construction of Sec.2 of the impugned Act, it is clear that Parliament made the legislation itself by reference adopting the laws set out in the Schedule.

Issues: Whether the impugned Act was beyond the legislative competence of Parliament and as such it is void.

Ratio Decidendi: Parliament was competent to make a law of its own, but it could not validate a State law which the State Legislature was not competent to enact, because the effect of such validation would be to confer legislative competence on the State Legislature in regard to a field outside its jurisdiction. However, on a fair and reasonable construction of Sec.2 of the impugned Act, it is clear that Parliament made the legislation itself by reference adopting the laws set out in the Schedule.

Final Decision: Writ application dismissed.