Baburam vs State of M. P. - 1996 Supreme(MP) 1115

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: N.K. Sanghi
For the Respondent: Alok Aradhe and S.S. Samvatsar

Headnote:(1) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) – S. 3 – notification issued for exemption of provisions of Act in respect of properties belonging to wakf and public trusts – not ultra vires.
       (2) Constitution of India – Art. 141 – validity of a provision upheld by Supreme Court – it will be presumed to have been upheld on all grounds – no further challenge lies – decision is binding on all.
        Short Note
       1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners who are the tenants of the different parts of the building owned by the respondent No.2 – a public trust registered under the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951, have challenged the constitutional validity of notification – Annexure – XVI issued by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under section 3 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (Act) exempting the building from the applicability of the provisions of the Act.
       2. During the pendency of the petition, another notification Annexure – XXII dated 7.9.1989 published in M.P. Rajpatra was issued by the State Government exempting all accommodations owned by (i) wakf registered under the Wakf Act 1954 (No. 29 of 1954) and (ii) Public Trust registered under the M.P. Public Trust Act 1951 (No. 30 of 1951) from all the provisions of the Act. Petitioners also challenged the said notification by amending the petition.
       3. The subsequent notification was a subject matter of the challenge before this Court of the properties owned by the wakf which was quashed by the decision of this Court in Chintamani Chandra Mohan Agarwal v. State of M.P. (1994 MPLJ 597). State of Madhya Pradesh challenged the said order before the Supreme Court. Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. ...../95 decided on 19.10.1995, arising out of SLP (C)No. 4360 of 1994 upheld the validity of the notification holding that the State Government after making all enquiries from various sources and on the material collected issued exemption notification, therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of this Court taking support from the decision in S. Kandaswami Chettiar v. State of Tamil Nadu and another (AIR 1985 SC 257).
       4. Shri N.K. Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the State Government was not empowered to issue notification as there was no material before it that the income derived from the building is utilized for the purpose of the public trust and also the trust was not a public charitable trust.
       5. It is not necessary for us to deal with the first notification as by later notification – Annexure – XXII, which is a general notification exempting the properties belonging to Wakf and Public Trust, from the applicability of the provisions of the Act has superseded the earlier notification Annexure – XVI. To deal with the said notification will now merely be an academic question, as the subsequent notification also covers the building owned by the respondent – trust, the constitutional validity of the second notification has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the notification in relation to properties owned by the Wakf Board under the Wakf Act, therefore, the petitioners still can challenge the constitutional validity of the subsequent notification in respect of building or properties belonging to Public Trust registered under the M.P. Public Trust Act 1951.
       6. In our opinion, the contention has no merit as it is well settled when the• Supreme Court considers the vires of a statutory provision or of a notification and upholds the constitutional validity of the said notification as a whole then it cannot be contended that before the Supreme Court a part of the notification was not under consideration. Finality in litigation and public policy both require that – a litigant should not be permitted to challenge validity of the provisions of the Act or notification at different times on different grounds. Once notification has been considered by the Supreme Court and the validity of the same was upheld it must be presumed that all grounds which could validly be raised were raised and considered by the Court and the decision would be binding under Article 141 of the Constitution. See – Anil Kumar Neotia and ors. v. Union of India and others (AIR 1988 SC 1353) and M/s. Kesho Ram and Co. and others etc. v. Union of India and others [(1989) 3 SCC 151].
       7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the liberty be granted to the petitioners if the respondents take action in respect of accommodation set to the petitioners under the garb of first notification – Annexure – XVI, as the counsel for the respondents has submitted that in view of the subsequent notification the petitioners challenge to the constitutional validity of the first notification has remained only academic, and therefore, the question has not been dealt with. It is not necessary to grant any liberty as counsel for the respondents have clearly stated that as their building is covered by subsequent notification, if necessity arises for taking action of eviction, they will take action under subsequent notification and not under the previous notification.
       8. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. However in the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs. Security amount, it any, be refunded to the petitioners.