Back
1967 Supreme(Goa) 1
Goa High Court
V.S.JETLEY
Pio Fernandes - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Decided On : 01/11/1967
S.K. Kakodkar, for Petitioners; S. Tamba, Govt. Pleader, for Respondent.
Parliament is competent to enact laws on matters not enumerated in the Lists in Schedule VII to the Constitution under residuary Entry 97 of the Union List.
Headnote:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - GOA, DAMAN AND DIU (OPINION POLL) ACT, 1966 - CONSTITUTIONALITY - LOCUS STANDI - COMPETENCY OF PARLIAMENT - EXCESSIVE DELEGATION - COLOURABLE LEGISLATION - VIOLATION OF STATUTORY DUTY OR ABUSE OF POWER.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of The Goa, Daman and Diu (Opinion Poll) Act, 1966, on several grounds, including lack of locus standi, excessive delegation, and colourable legislation.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioners lacked locus standi to challenge the Act as they had not been discriminated against and had not suffered any injury. The Court also held that Parliament was competent to enact the Act under Articles 246(1), 246(4), and residuary Entry 97 of the Constitution. The Court further held that the Act did not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation as Parliament had indicated the basic policy in Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Finally, the Court held that there was no violation of any statutory duty or abuse of power by the Executive.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners had locus standi to challenge the Act. 2. Whether Parliament was competent to enact the Act. 3. Whether the Act suffered from the vice of excessive delegation. 4. Whether the Act was a piece of colourable legislation. 5. Whether there was any violation of statutory duty or abuse of power by the Executive.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The petitioners lacked locus standi to challenge the Act as they had not been discriminated against and had not suffered any injury. 2. Parliament was competent to enact the Act under Articles 246(1), 246(4), and residuary Entry 97 of the Constitution. 3. The Act did not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation as Parliament had indicated the basic policy in Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. 4. The Act was not a piece of colourable legislation as Parliament was competent to enact it. 5. There was no violation of any statutory duty or abuse of power by the Executive.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.
2. The following questions arise for consideration upon the affidavits filed :- (1) Whether the petitioners deliberately suppressed the mention of Explanations I and II inserted in Article 3 of the Constitution by the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 1966 enacted on 27th August, 1966; (2) whether Parliament 1967 Goa, Daman and D./6 VII G-22 is competent to provide for merger in the event of a verdict in favour of merger in the State of Maharashtra; (3) whether the petitioners have locus standi to file the petition; (4) whether Parliament is competent to enact the Goa, Daman and Diu (Opinion Poll) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act"); (5) whether the Act suffers from the vice of excessive delegation; (6) whether the act is a piece of colourable legislation; and (7) whether there is any violation of statutory duty or abuse of statutory power by the respondents.
3. I shall survey the provisions of the Act before considering the arguments advanced at the Bar. As will appear from the preamble, the Act was enacted to provide for "the taking of an Opinion Poll to ascertain the wishes of the electors of Goa, Daman and Diu with regard to the future status thereof and for matters connected therewith". Section 2 is a definition section on usual lines. Clause (b) defines the 'Chief Election Commissioner' as meaning the Chief Election Commissioner appointed by the President under Article 324 of the Constitution. Clause (e)(i) defines 'elector' as meaning in relation to Goa, a person whose name is entered in the Electoral Roll of a Constituency for the time being in force in Goa. 'Goa' under Clause (f) means the area comprised in the Assembly constituencies of the Union Territory other than the areas comprised in the Daman Assembly constituency and the Diu Assembly constituency. Clause (d) defines 'Opinion Poll' as meaning a Poll taken to ascertain the wishes of the electors in pursuance of the provisions of the Act.
Sections 3 and 4 are the basic provisions. Section 3(a) provides that an Opinion Poll shall be taken for the purpose of ascertaining the wishes of the electors of Goa as to whether Goa should merge in the State of Maharashtra or should continue to be Union Territory. Section 4(a) contemplates that, subject to the provisions of Section 23, every elector of an assembly constituency in Goa, and no other person shall be entitled to vote at the Opinion Poll taken in relation to Goa. Section 5 provides that no fee shall be paid on application for inclusion of names in Electoral Roll and for any appeal preferred against any order made on such application if such application or appeal is made or preferred within a period of thirty days immediately following the commencement of the Act.
Section 6 says that the Opinion Poll shall be conducted under the superintendence, direction and control of the Chief Election Commissioner. Sections 7 to 31 contain provisions for implementing the Act and for ensuring free and fair Poll. In pursuance of Section 16, the date for Opinion Poll is fixed on 16th January, 1967.
