The main legal point established is that the impugned legislation did not interfere with the independence of judiciary, and it was consistent with the constitutional mandate.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Karol, J.

From the submissions made, this Court is called upon to decide the following questions of law:-

(i) Whether the Bihar Repeal of Laws (which are no longer needed or relevant) Act, 2016 was enacted with an endevour of setting at naught the judicial pronouncements rendered by this Court?

(ii) Whether the said legislation can be said to be an act of judicial overreach, interfering with the independence of judiciary?

(iii) Whether the said legislation is ultra vires the Constitution?

A brief background leading to the filing of the instant writ petition.

2. By virtue of the provisions of the Village Chaukidari Act, 1870, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1870’) and the Bengal Village Chaukidari Act, 1871 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1871’), certain persons could be appointed or dismissed as Chaukidars for the purposes of maintenance of village(s) in the State of Bihar. Claiming discrimination and disparity over certain emoluments, that is the pay scale payable to persons appointed as Chaukidars by virtue of and under the Chotanagpur Rural Police Act, 1987 for certain areas termed as ‘Chotangapur division’, Chaukidars appointed, under the Act of 1870 and the Act of 1871, formed a Union and filed a writ petition before this Court, being CWJC No.4943 of 1983 titled as Bihar Rajya Choukidari Tahsildar Sangh and others Versus The State of Bihar & others. Vide order/ judgement dated 03rd May, 1988, the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the State Government to consider the matter afresh. The operative portion whereof reads as under:-

“9. However, in view of the fact that in the counter affidavit itself the respondents have stated that the Circle Sarpanch Sangh has filed a representation before the Chief Minister and the same is under consideration of the State Government, I am of the opinion that the matter should be considered from all its aspects by the State Government afresh. The State Government while considering the representations of the petitioner, in my opinion, should also take into consideration the salient principles embodied under Article 39 (D) of the Constitution which provides for equal pay for equal work. In any event, the State Government will be well advised to consider the case of the petitioners regard being had to the nature of duties and other functions of the petitioners vis-à-vis Choukidari Tahsildars of Chota Nagpur division in terms of the provisions of the Village Chaukidari Act and the Manual and the Chota Nagpur Rural Police Act, 1914. As the matter has been pending for a long time, it is expected that the State Government shall take a decision in this regard at an early date, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The State while passing the order may keep in mind the recent decisions of the Supreme Court.”

(Emphasis supplied)

3. The State Government considered the matter afresh, but did not find any merit, hence the petitioner filed yet another writ petition before this Court being CWJC No.7339 of 1981 titled as Bihar Rajya Choukidari Tahsildar Sangh and another Versus the State of Bihar & Ors. which also was disposed of on 29th March, 1996 again with a direction to the State Government to consider the matter afresh. The operative portion of the order reads as under:-

“8. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 29th April, 1991 of the respondent No.1 the State of Bihar [Annexure 1] is quashed. The respondent No.1 is directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law in the light of observations made above, by a reasoned order, within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order on respondent No.2.”

4. Noticeably, in both the cases, on merits, rights of the parties remained un-determined by the Court, much less in favour of the petitioner body, its members or any one of the Chaukidars.

5. On 28th April, 1997, the