The central legal point established in the judgment is that conferring judicial power on an Executive Magistrate under the Bombay Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions Act, 1951 violates the constitutional mandate of separation of Judiciary from Executive and is against the 'conscience of the Constitution'.

M. Sathyanarayanan, J.

1. By consent, this Review Petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. Facts leading to the present litigation have been narrated in detail and in extenso in the impugned order dated 03.06.2014 made in W.P.No.7650 of 2013 and therefore, it is unnecessary to restate the facts once again except to narrate the facts briefly for the disposal of this Review Petition.

2.1. The first respondent in the Review Petition filed W.P.No.7650 of 2013 against the review petitioner as well as against the respondents 2 to 5, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in G.O.Ms.No.1188/1987, Social Welfare Department dated 17.07.1987 and quash the same and forbear the third respondent from conducting further trial in Crime No.41/2006 against the concerned accused on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvallur.

2.2. The Writ Petition was entertained and during the course of arguments, it was brought to the knowledge of this Court that the Bombay High Court, in the decision in Govind Shanwar Chatal v. Dattatraya Waman Bhanushali and another [1992 (2) Bom CR 569], has held that in the light of the provisions of Bombay Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions Act, 1951, conferment of power with Executive Magistrate to try the offences punishable under the said Act would amount to clear interference by the Executive in the administration of justice and therefore, quashed the impugned proceedings pending before the Executive Magistrate and remanded the matter to the Judicial Magistrate Court, I Class, for trial in accordance with law and further declared that all proceedings pending before the Executive Magistrate in the Sate of Maharashtra for trial of offences under the said Act on the strength of notifications published by the Government of Maharashtra, in exercise of powers under Section 21 of the Act, shall stand transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate and the Executive Magistrate shall not exercise powers to conduct trial of offences under the said Act.

2.3. It was further argued that a Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the decision in Hanumantsing Kubersing v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another [1996 (0) MPLJ 380 (FB)], has also took a similar view and both the decisions have not been put to challenge and it has become final and therefore, prayed for quashment of the said Government Order.

2.4. This Court, upon hearing the rival submissions, found that the power for trial of offences under the Bombay Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions Act, 1951 can be conferred only upon Judicial Magistrate and the Executive Magistrate cannot exercise such power and therefore, quashed the said Government Order.

2.5. The respondents 2 to 5 in the writ petition did not make further challenge to the said order, which is the subject matter of this Review Petition and therefore, it has become final insofar as they are concerned.

2.6. The Review Petitioner has came forward to file this Review Petition by contending among other things that the validity of a Central Legislation cannot be declared without impleading the Central Government as a party and the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 is a welfare legislation and the procedure to be adopted is summary in nature and therefore, the Legislature thought fit to confer the said power to the Executive Magistrate in terms of Section 21 of the said Act and therefore, it cannot be faulted with.

3. Mr. B. Rabu Manohar, learned Senior Central Government Panel Counsel appearing for the review petitioner would submit that without impleading the concerned Ministry, namely Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi, the impugned order came to be passed in the writ petition, strucking down the Government Order by placing reliance upon the decision of the Bombay High Court and Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court cited supra and therefore, prays for reviewing of the order.

4. Mr. David Sunder