Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Bose
MANMULL JAIN - Appellant
Versus
N. C. PUTATUNDA - Respondent
Civil Rule 1460 Of 1952
Decided On : DECEMBER 16, 1952
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLE 226 - CHANDERNAGORE (APPLICATION OF LAWS) ORDER 1950 - WHETHER HIGH COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ISSUE WRIT OR DIRECTION TO ANY PERSON OR AUTHORITY IN CHANDERNAGORE - HELD, NO.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a petrol pump owner in Chandernagore, challenged the imposition of petrol duty by the respondent, the Treasury Officer of Chandernagore, arguing that the respondent had no power to administer French Laws and that the resolution imposing the duty was invalid. The petitioner also contended that the High Court had no jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with the notice of demand or the summons issued by the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the High Court had no jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with the notice of demand or the summons issued by the respondent, as the Chandernagore (Application of Laws) Order 1950 had only given the High Court a limited jurisdiction and the jurisdiction under Article 226 had not been extended to Chandernagore.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a writ or direction to any person or authority in Chandernagore? 2. Whether the respondent had the power to administer French Laws and to levy the petrol duty in question?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Chandernagore (Application of Laws) Order 1950 only gave the High Court a limited jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction under Article 226 had not been extended to Chandernagore. 2. The President of India had assumed control and administration in respect of the territory of Chandernagore and had promulgated the Chandernagore (Administration) Regulation 1952, which made provision for the administration of Chandernagore and for matters connected therewith.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.
The paragraph that states the High Court has the jurisdiction to lay down law on its own jurisdiction is the one where the court clarifies that its authority to determine its jurisdiction is constrained and defined by the applicable legal statutes and orders, rather than being a matter of the court independently establishing such jurisdiction. It emphasizes that the High Court's power to interpret and enforce its jurisdiction is limited by the legal framework in place, and it cannot extend its jurisdiction beyond what is permitted by those laws and regulations.
This paragraph underscores the principle that the High Court has the inherent power to determine its own jurisdiction within the bounds of the law, rather than having an unfettered or independent authority to do so outside the statutory framework (!) .
( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ directing the respondent to forbear from giving effect to a notice of demand dated 8-5-1952 and a summons dated 13-5-1952 issued by the respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay a certain sum by way of petrol duty, and also to forbear from giving effect to a resolution dated 19-12-1951 and an order dated 4-4-1952 under which the said petrol duty has been purported to have been imposed upon the petitioner.
( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that he carries on a business amongst other places in the city of Chandernagore as Agent of Burmah-Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd. under the name and style of Hind Trading Co. and as such runs a Petrol Pump at Burra Bazar, Grand Trunk Road in the City of Chandernagore. The said Petrol Pump yields a daily average cash sale of about Rs. 500/ -. By a decree of the President of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Prance, Chandernagore was declared a free city. In July 1949 there was a referendum in Chandernagore relating to the question of transfer of the City of Chandernagore to the Indian Union. By a provisional Franco-Indian treaty signed in Paris in the beginning of 1950 (and subsequently ratified) the territory of the City of Chandernagore was ceded to India subject to ratification by the Republic of France. In May 1950 the said city of Chandernagore was de facto transferred to the Indian Union by the President of the Council of Ministers, France, pending ratification of the said Treaty. By a notification dated 1-5-1950, the Government of the Indian Union in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4, Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act 1947 (47 of 1947) promulgated an Order called the Chandernagore (Application of Laws) Order 1950 and it was made operative from 2-5-1950. The said Order provided that certain enactments of the Indian Legislature which are mentioned in a schedule appended to the said Order would come into force in Chandernagore and the corresponding French Laws would cease to be operative in the said city. On or about 1-5-1950 the Government of India also appointed an Administrator and certain other officers to carry on the administration of the said city. The respondent was appointed Treasury Officer of Chandernagore with effect from 2-5-1950 and subsequently he was appointed Precepteur of the said City. The case of the petitioner further is that the effect of the Chandernagore (Application of Laws) Order 1950 was that except matters which were governed by the various enactments specified in the Schedule of the said Order, all other matters were governed by French Laws which were in force prior to the commencement of the said Order and which remained in force even after promulgation of the said Order. The imposition of petrol duty was outside the purview of the Application of Laws Order 1950 and was a matter governed by French Laws. The respondent being an officer appointed by the Government of India had no power to administer French Laws and as such the order of imposition of the petrol duty and the notice of demand and summons issued by the respondent were all illegal and without jurisdiction, and therefore, unenforceable against the petitioner.
( 3 ) IT is also the case of the petitioner that the resolution passed by the Municipal Assembly of Chandernagore on 19-12-1951 and the order dated 4-4-1952 which made the said resolution operative, are invalid and have no force and effect, inasmuch as the prescribed procedure for making the said resolution a valid and effective piece of legislation was not followed in respect of the said resolution dated 19-12-1951, and consequently the levy of petrol duty and the steps taken for enforcing payment of such duty were entirely without jurisdiction.
( 4 ) ON the question whether the respondent has power to administer French Laws and to levy the petrol duty in question reliance has been placed by Mr
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
