1953 Supreme(Raj) 81

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
WANCHOO, SHARMA, JJ.
Madan Singh
Versus
Collector Sikar
Writ Petn. No. 19 of 1952
Decided On : 16-04-1953

Headnote:

The Jaipur District Boards Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force on 3-10-1947. It provided for the constitution of District Boards in the erstwhile Jaipur State. The Act was amended several times, with the most significant amendments being the Jaipur District Boards Act Amendment Ordinance No. 3 of 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Ordinance) and the Jaipur District Boards Act (Amendment) No. 24 of 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Third Amendment Act). These amendments were passed during the pendency of several petitions challenging the validity of the cess levied by the District Boards. The main grounds of challenge were that the District Boards were not properly constituted, the cess was not levied in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, and the Act itself was void being repugnant to Arts. 13 and 14 of the Constitution of India.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, who were State grantees and cultivators of the territories included in the former Jaipur State, filed petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the cess levied by the District Boards. The petitions were heard by a Bench of the Rajasthan High Court and were reserved for judgment. Before the judgment could be delivered, the Amending Ordinance and the Third Amendment Act were passed. The respondents moved the court to decide the cases in light of the amendments. The petitioners objected, arguing that the amendments could not be taken into consideration as they were passed during the pendency of the petitions. The court, however, held that the amendments could be considered and proceeded to hear further arguments on the validity of the cess.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the District Boards were properly constituted and the cess was levied in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The court also held that the Act itself was not void being repugnant to Arts. 13 and 14 of the Constitution of India. The court further held that the amendments made by the Amending Ordinance and the Third Amendment Act were retrospective in effect and governed all the petitions, whether they were filed before or after the amendments were passed. The court also held that the newly constituted Boards of Tonk and Sikar, which included the areas formerly within Malpura District Board, had the power to collect cesses levied by Malpura Board. The court dismissed all the petitions and ordered parties to bear their own costs.

Issues: 1. Whether the District Boards were properly constituted? 2. Whether the cess was levied in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law? 3. Whether the Act itself was void being repugnant to Arts. 13 and 14 of the Constitution of India? 4. Whether the amendments made by the Amending Ordinance and the Third Amendment Act were retrospective in effect? 5. Whether the newly constituted Boards of Tonk and Sikar had the power to collect cesses levied by Malpura Board?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the District Boards were properly constituted as they were appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The court rejected the petitioners' argument that the Chairmen were not appointed members first and that some of the members were appointed by their offices and not by their personal names. The court held that there was no bar to the members being appointed ex-officio and that the publication of the names of the members by their offices was not in contravention of any provision of the Act. 2. The court held that the cess was levied in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The court rejected the petitioners' argument that the sanction of the Government ought to have been obtained first and thereafter a resolution passed by the Board levying cess. The court held that the amendments made by the Amending Ordinance and the Third Amendment Act had done away with the necessity of obtaining previous sanction of the Government and that the sanction could be obtained after the passing of the resolution levying cess. 3. The court held that the Act itself was not void being repugnant to Arts. 13 and 14 of the Constitution of India. The court rejected the petitioners' argument that the Act was discriminatory as it gave District Boards only to a part of Rajasthan. The court held that there was a reasonable basis for classification inasmuch as the inhabitants of the erstwhile Jaipur State had the privilege of enjoying the benefits of Local self-Government by virtue of the Act and consequently, they had the liability to pay cess for carrying on these institutions. 4. The court held that the amendments made by the Amending Ordinance and the Third Amendment Act were retrospective in effect. The court held that the words "shall be, and be deemed always to have been substituted" clearly showed that the Legislature intended to give retrospectivity to the amendments. The court also held that the amendments affected even the petitions that were filed before the amendments were passed. 5. The court held that the newly constituted Boards of Tonk and Sikar had the power to collect cesses levied by Malpura Board. The court held that the amendment made by S. 3 of the Amending Ordinance as well as the Third Amendment Act was retrospective in its effect and governed all the petitions. The court held that the amendment provided that a newly constituted Board under S. 4 or S. 4-A in respect of any area or which has been vested with jurisdiction over any area under Sub-S. (1), S. 3-A, shall under the Act exercise all such powers, collect all such cesses, realise all such amounts and do all such acts as were being exercised, collected, realised and done on such area by the previously existing Board, if any, immediately before such constitution or vesting as aforesaid.

Final Decision: All the petitions were dismissed and the parties were ordered to bear their own costs.