Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1961 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1961 (12) TMI 81 - SC - Indian LawsWhether s. 4 of Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 Orissa (XXXIII of 1950) offends the equality before law guaranteed by Art. 14? Whether s. 5(1) is invalid? Whether the Governor was not competent to issue an Ordinance with a view to over-ride the judgment delivered by the High Court in its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution? Whether the Ordinance having lapsed on April 1st 1959, the appeals themselves have become infructuous? Held that:- We do not think there is any substance in the alternative argument urged in support of the plea that s. 4 is ineffective even if it does not contravene Art, 14. We do not think that the High Court was justified in holding that s. 5(1) was void to the extent of its repugnancy to the existing laws dealing with matters in the Concurrent List. There is no repugnancy to any existing laws and so, there is no contravention of Art. 254(2) of the Constitution at all. It is true that the judgment delivered by the High Court under Art.226 must be respected but that is not to say that the Legislature is incompetent to deal with problems raised by the said judgment if the said problems and their proposed solutions are otherwise within their legislative competence. It would, we think, be erroneous to equate the judgment of the High Court under Art. 226 with Art 226 itself and confer upon it all the attributes of the said constitutional provision. The Ordinance has in terms provided that the Order of Court declaring the elections to the Cuttack Municipality to be invalid shall be deemed to be and always to have been of no legal effect whatever and that the said elections are thereby validated. That being so, the said elections must be deemed to have been validly held under the Act and the life of the newly elected Municipality would be governed by the relevant provisions of the Act and would not come to an end as soon as the Ordinance expires. Therefore, we do not think that the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Chetty against the competence of the appeals can be upheld. Appeal allowed.
|