SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1965 Supreme(MP) 66

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. V. Dixit, C. J. and S. P. Bhargava, J.
CHHOTABHAI JETHABHAI PATEL AND CO. - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 264 Of 1965
Decided On : 04/27/1965

Advocates Appeared:
A.P.SEN, M.ADHIKARI, P.C.PATHAK, R.J.BHAVE, R.K.Tankha, R.S.DABIR

Headnote:(1) Constitution of India - Arts. 213 (1) & 254 - instructions of the President-when necessary-Ordinance covering matters coming in State List - instructions not necessary-Ordinance amending Rules framed under an act assented to by the President - no criterion for the matter Tendu Pata (Vyapar Viniyaman) Niyamavali Sansodhan Adhyadesh, 1965(M.P.).

       The question whether any ordinance promulgated by the Governor required under Art.213 (1) previous instruction from the president as to be determined solely with reference to the provisions of the ordinance. The fact that the Act itself was reserved for consideration of the president and received his assent is by no means decisive. The Act death with many matters falling under the concurrent list not covered by section 3 of the ordinance and undoubtedly required under Art. 254 the assent of the president to make the legislation valid.

       Tendu leaves are forest produce and disposal of Tendu leaves which have become the property at the State Government is a matter falling under Entry No. 19 of the State List. A law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the state list does not require the assent of the President.

       The Ordinance which has amended the rules made under section 19 of the Act is not invalid because no previous instruction from the president were obtaind. AIR 1931 Cal. 346 & AIR 1964 AP 266 referred to. [Para 8

       (2) Tendu Patio (Vyopar Viniyaman) Niyamavali Sanshodhan Adhyadesh, 1965 (M.P.) - S.3-Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964 (M.P.) – S.19 - amendment of Rule by the ordinance and giving the amendment retrospective operation - is not colourable legislation -motive is not relevant.

       If an enactment is within the legislative competence of the Legislature, then the motives which impelled it to act are really irrelevant and have no bearing on the question whether the Act is or is not a colourable piece of legislation.

       The doctrine of 'colourable legislation' does not involve any question of bona fide or ma laf1des on the part of the Legislature. AIR 1953 SC 375. AIR 1959 SC 308, AIR 1962 SC 458 & AIR 1965 SC 1017 relied on. [Para 13

       The Ordinance was clearly within the competence of the State Legislature as it fell under Entry No.19 of the State List. The power of validation by a subsequent legislation of any defecting law or act done under any Act is subsidiary or ancillary to the power to deal with the particular subject. AIR 1941 FC 10, AIR 1944 FCI & AIR 1961 SC 1486 relied on.

       Subject to any limitation imposed by the Constitution, Parliament and State Legislature, can give to their laws, otherwise valid, retrospective or prospective operation. AIR 1954 SC 158, AIR 1958 SC 468 & AIR 1961 SC 1534 relied on.

       It cannot be maintained with any degree of force that the Ordinance was a colourable piece of legislation and it was not within the legislative competence of the State Legislature or because it contained a validating provision or that it gave retrospective effect to the amendment made in the rules. Nor can it be urged that it was beyond the competence of the Legislature inasmuch as while leaving the rule-making power delegated to the State Government under section 19 of the Act intact, the Ordinance purported to amend the Rules. When the Legislature confers upon a subordinate agency the power to make rules or regulations for carrying out all or any of the provisions of an Act and for certain matters, the Legislature by such delegation does not efface itself. 1963 JLJ 5 relied on.

       The State legislature has full powers to amend any rule made by the State Government under section 19 of the Act. The contention, therefore, that the Ordinance could not amend the Rules made by the State Government under section 19 of the Act in the face of the power given to the State Government under that section cannot, therefore, be accepted. 1965 JLJ 68, AIR 1959 Ail. 208 & AIR 1960 SC 1008 referred to. [Para 13

DIXIT, C. J.

( 1 ) BY this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner-challenges the validity of the "madhya Pradesh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman)Niyamavali Sanshodhan Adhyadesh, 1965" (hereinafter referred to as the ordinance), an ordinance promulgated by the Governor on 11th May 1965, amending in certain respects the "madhya Pradesh Tendu Patta- (Vyapar viniyaman ) Niyamavali, 1965, (Rules framed under the M. P. Tendu Patta (Vyapar viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964, and hereinafter called the Rules), and of the appointment of the respondent No. 5, M/s Vrajlal Muljibhai and Co. , Bilaspur, as purchaser for the purchase of Tendu Patta leaves collected by the Government or by its officers or agents in certain units of certain ranges of North Bilaspur Forest division. The petitioner prays that the Ordinance be declared' invalid and the appointment of the respondent No. 5 purporting to have been made in accordance with the Rules, as amended by the Ordinance, be held to be illegal, and the opponents be commanded to give effect to the Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel and Co. v. State of M. P. , Misc. Petn. No. 153 of 1965, D/-27-4-1965: (AIR 1966 MP 34)by inviting fresh tenders in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules,, as they stood before they were amended by the Ordinance, for the disposal of Tendu leaves collected from the aforesaid units.

( 2 ) THE matter arises thus After the coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Tendu patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964, (hereinafter called the Act), the government issued a notice on 9th February 1965 inviting tenders from persons or parties desirous of purchasing Tendu leaves purchased or likely to be collected by government or its officers or agents in the various Tendu Patta Units, a list of which was appended to the notice. That list included the units involved in this application. According to this tender notice, tenders for the units of ranges of north Bilaspur Forest Division had to be submitted personally to the Conservator of Forests, Bilaspur, or to his Office Superintendent, before 15. 00 hours of 2nd march 1965. They could also be sent by registered post so as to reach the conservator of Forests or his office before the said date and time. No tenders for the units in question were, however, received at Bilaspur upto 15. 00 hours of 2nd march 1965. "the respondent No. 5, however, presented its tenders in respect of the units concerned at Raipur on 2nd March 1965 in sealed covers addressed to the Conservator of Forests, Bilaspur, through the Conservator of Forests, Raipur. These tenders were accepted by the Government.

( 3 ) THE petitioner then filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution questioning the validity of the tenders submitted by the respondent No. 5 and seeking a direction restraining the Government from acting in any manner on those tenders. It also prayed for the issue of a direction to the opponents commanding them to entertain and consider the tenders it had submitted on 16th march 1965 to the Conservator of Forests, Bilaspur, for the purchase of Tendu leaves from the units in question for which the respondents No. 5 had given its tenders. That petition (M. P. No. 153 of 1965 : (AIR 1966 MP 34) was allowed in part by us on 27th April 1965 holding that the tenders submitted for the units in question by the respondent No. 5 were invalid and consequently the acceptance of those tenders by the State Government was also invalid. The petitioner's prayer for a direction to the opponent State to entertain and consider its tenders submitted on 16th March 1965, was, however rejected by us. The decision in M. P. No. 153 of 1965 : (AIR 1966 MP 34) proceeded on the reasoning that the Government having framed Rules under Section 19 of the Act for regulating the sale and disposal of Tendu leaves was bound to follow the Rules in the sale and disposal of Tendu leaves; that when the Rules had been framed for the exercise of the general powers conferred b

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top