9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Kalambandis constitute an existing law under Article 372 of the Constitution. 2. Whether the appellant's right to receive the specified amount can be extinguished by an executive order. 3. Whether the right to receive the specified amount constitutes property under Article 31 of the Constitution. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the Kalambandis constitute an existing law under Article 372 of the Constitution: The primary question was whether the Kalambandis under which the appellant's right to receive Rs. 21/8/- per month by way of Bachat (balance) is guaranteed, constitute an existing law within the meaning of Article 372 of the Constitution. The appellant argued that these Kalambandis were statutes, orders, rules, or regulations having the force of statutes, recognized by the Rulers of Gwalior. The respondents contended that the Kalambandis were merely administrative orders and not laws. The Full Bench of the Madhya Bharat High Court initially held that the Kalambandis were orders for reorganizing the scheme of administration and did not amount to laws or regulations with the force of law. However, upon remand, Abdul Hakim Khan and Newaskar, JJ., found in favor of the appellant, holding that the Kalambandis were regulations with the force of law at the material time, while Krishnan, J., dissented. The Supreme Court noted that the distinction between executive orders and legislative commands is academic when the Ruler is the source of all power. It emphasized that all orders issued by an absolute monarch had the force of law. The Court concluded that the Kalambandis, considering their detailed provisions and the context of their issuance, must be treated as rules or regulations having the force of law. This finding was supported by the detailed nature of the Kalambandis, which included provisions for hereditary rights, adoption, maintenance of widows, and other regulatory aspects. 2. Whether the appellant's right to receive the specified amount can be extinguished by an executive order: The appellant contended that his right to receive the specified amount, recognized by the Kalambandis, could not be extinguished by an executive order. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that if the Kalambandis are rules or regulations with the force of law, the impugned executive order issued by respondent 1 would be invalid. The Court emphasized that a right guaranteed by an existing law cannot be extinguished by an executive order. 3. Whether the right to receive the specified amount constitutes property under Article 31 of the Constitution: The appellant alternatively argued that his right to receive the specified amount constituted property, and he could not be divested of this property without compensation under Article 31 of the Constitution. The respondents denied this, stating that the payment was for military service and did not constitute property. However, given the Court's finding that the Kalambandis constituted existing law, it was unnecessary to decide whether the right to receive the amount constituted property under Article 31. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court, and directed that a proper writ or order be issued in favor of the appellant as prayed for. The appellant was entitled to his costs throughout. The Court held that the Kalambandis were regulations having the force of law, and the appellant's right to receive the specified amount could not be extinguished by an executive order.
|
