Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. V. Dixit, C. J. and K. L. Pandey, J.
KRISHI UPAJ VYAVASAI MANDAL - Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 221 Of 1963
Decided On : 04/28/1964
The Legislature can be regarded as exercising judicial power only when, without amending the law, it directs, contrary to the law in force, that pending cases shall be disposed of in a particular manner or that cases decided in one way shall be deemed to have been decided in another way. 1962 JLJ 725 & AIR 1944 FC 86 followed. [Para 5
Hence, section 3 of the M.P. Agricultural Produce Markets (Validation) Act, 1962, purporting to validate an action taken under the M.P. Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1962, and which has been struck down by judgment cannot be challenged as judicial act performed by the legislative authority. This provision cannot be challenged an this ground also that Legislature has no power to validate on action taken without retrospective amendment of the law under which such an action is taken Validation of action taken or things done should be regarded as ancillary or subsidiary to the power to legislate. AIR 1941 FC 16, AIR 1944 FC 1, AIR 1955 SC 58, AIR 1960 SC 1080 & AIR 1961 SC 652 followed. [Para 5
The Legislature is authorised only to enact laws. It may make a law operating with retrospective effect. So long as it is acting within the limits of the legislative field reserved for it by the Constitution, any law made by it will not be open to challenge on the ground that that law has, as its direct or indirect consequence, put an end to the finality of a judicial decision or has reopened past controversies settled by such decisions. AIR 1953 Nag. 40, AIR 1958 SC 468, AIR 1961 SC 1534 & AIR 1962 SC 945 referred to. [Para 6
(2) Agricultural Produce Markets (Validation) Act, 1962 (M.P.) - M.P. Ordinance No. 12 of 1962 - S. 3 - validation of actions - can be done without retrospective change in law - the amendment validating the notification struck down by a judgment of the High Court - not unreasonable restriction or classification - Constitution of India - Arts 14 & 19 (1) (g).
It is true that for validating an act, the law itself must be retrospectively amended. But such retrospective amendment is necessary only when it is desired to change the law with retrospective effect. When it is intended to validate certain past action, this can be done by a new enactment, and it cannot be said that such validation is insufficient because the Legislature instead of amending the law, validated the actions taken by enacting the Validation Act. 1962 JLJ 987, 1963 JLJ 917 referred. AIR 1962 SC 1517, AR 1957 Bom. 266 & AIR 1962 SC 945 followed. [Para 7
The Notification prohibiting the use of particular place for transacting business in agricultural commodity, validated by section 3 of the Validating Act, does not impose unreasonable restriction and does not Violate Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. AIR 1962 SC 97 & AIR 1962 SC 1517 followed. [Paras 4 & 8
The classification made in section 3 is also reasonable and does not violate Art. 14 of the Constitution. AIR 1958 SC 538 & AIR 1962 SC 945 followed. [Para 9
( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition, which are some what involved, may be stated as briefly as possible Before the, formation of the United State of Madhya bharat in the year 1948, the city of Ujjain formed part of the erstwhile princely state of Gwalior where the Qawaid Mand Hai Gwalior (Samvat 1986) (hereinafter called the Qawaid) was in force. By virtus of Section 4 of Act 1 of 1948, the laws in force in all the covenanting states were continued in force until duly amended or repealed. In the year 1952, the Madhya Bharat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Madhya Bharat Act) was placed on the statute book. By Section 31 of that Act, the corresponding laws in force in various parts of the new State, including the Qawaid, were, subject to the following proviso, repealed :
"provided that the Mandi or Market Committees duly constituted under the said Qawaid or rules and holding office immediately prior to the date on which this Act comes into force shall continue to function as if constituted under this Act and the Chairman of any such committee holding office prior to the commencement of this Act shall continue to be the Chairman thereof until new Market Committees are duly constituted to replace them under this Act. It shall however be open to the government to nominate not more than 3 representatives of agriculturists on every one of these committees and also to pass such orders as they deem fit in respect of the market areas for which each of these committees may be deemed to have been constituted and also in respect of the commodities each of them may regulate. "Without issuing any notification under Sections 3 and 4 of the Madhya Bharat Act, fresh elections were held and nominations were made in the years 1954 and 1958 with a view to constituting new market committees in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of that Act. Also, the State of Madhya Bharat issued a number of notifications in the purported exercise of its powers under the Madhya bharat Act and the rules made thereunder. By a notification No. 145/13 dated 9 june 1953, it established Mandis, including the one at Ujjain, declared market areas and specified the agricultural commodities which could be vended in those mandis. By another notification No. 497/13 dated 26 May 1954, it declared inter alia that Daulatganj would be the market yard for transacting business in grains at Ujjains. By the third notification No. 2916/13 dated 26 May 1954, it invited suggestions relating to, and objections against, its intention to regulate the purchase and sale of wheat in certain towns including Ujjain. By the fourth notification No. 3670/13 dated 12 August 1954, it declared certain Mandis, including the one at Ujjain, to be market areas for purchase and sale of wheat. By the fifth notification No. 8188/xiv/57 dated 11 June 1957, it superseded the notification No. 497/13 dated 26 May 1954 whereby Daulatganj was declared to be the market yard at Ujjain for dealing in grains and instead declared Chimanganj to be the market yard. Finally, by an order dated 6 February 1958, the market committee (respondent 2) prohibited use of Daulatganj for transacting business in any agricultural commodity.
( 3 ) IN Miscellaneous Petition No. 31 of 1958, which was mainly directed against disestablishment of the Daulatganj market yard, Razzaque J. by his order dated 20 september 1961, declared the five notifications mentioned in the last paragraph to be void and forbade interference with the right of the petitioners to carry on business at Daulatganj "till the various notifications are regularised and validated". Thereupon, by the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Produce Market (Validati
SupremeToday
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
