TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Speaker obtained for accepting the error as patent error. As the Hindi version of the Bill presented before the Lok Sabha contained the correct rate of 15%. The printed version in English and Hindi of the Bills passed by Lok Sabha forwarded to Rajya Sabha contained the correct rate of 15%. The assent of the Hon’ble President of India has been received to the Bill which contains the rate of 15%. Failure to obtain sanction of the Hon’ble Speaker under Rule 95 of the Rules of Procedure in the facts of this case is thus, only a procedural defect. There is no illegality attached to it. At highest, there is an irregularity of the procedure. Therefore, bar of Article 122(1) of the Constitution of India will be squarely attracted in the present case. Direction to pay costs may be recalled - This request cannot be acceded to inasmuch as the orders passed by this Court from 13th July, 2006 onwards show that there was failure on the part of the Respondents to produce relevant documents. The correspondence on record shows that even no heed was paid to the correspondence made by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India. Therefore, not inclined to revoke the said order of payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner filed a fresh classification list on 30th March, 1986 showing the rate at 12%. The Petitioner filed a classification list on 7th April, 1986 effective from 1st April, 1986 showing the rate of duty of 12% ad valorem falling under sub-heading 8426. The approval was received by the Petitioners on 11th June, 1986. By letter dated 9th April, 1986, the approved rate of duty effective from 1st March, 1986 was altered to 12% ad valorem . The Petitioner was served with the show cause notice dated 26th August, 1986 issued by the first Respondent demanding duty amounting to Rs. 15,08,034.20 ps in respect of clearance of cranes during the period from 1st March, 1986 to 31st July, 1986. The allegation in the notice was that the duty payable on the cranes was 15% ad valorem and not 12% ad valorem . For the subsequent period also, a show cause notice dated 30th January, 1987 was issued demanding the duty of Rs. 2,90,244.75 ps. on the same ground. The order in adjudication was passed by the first Respondent on 8th August, 1987 confirming the demands made under both the show cause notices. The Petitioners being aggrieved by the said order preferred an Appeal before the Collector of Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by the Lok Sabha in which against the sub-heading 8426, the rate of duty shown is 15% ad valorem . The third document produced is a copy of the Bill No. 202-C of 1985 as passed by the Lok Sabha on 16th December, 1985. In the said Bill, against the sub-heading 8426, the rate of duty is shown as 15% ad valorem . The procedure followed has been set out in a communication annexed to the said affidavit. The communication is by the Joint Secretary of Lok Sabha. It is stated that in the English version of the Bill introduced in Lok Sabha, due to printing mistake, the rate of 12% was shown but Hindi version showed the rate of 15%. The English version of the Bill was circulated with the said mistake and was introduced in the Lok Sabha. It is further stated that after introduction of the Bill, an advance copy of the English version of the Bill was prepared and sent to the Legislative Department for scrutiny. After it was sent for scrutiny, the Draftsman changed the rate of duty from 12% to 15% against the sub-heading 8426 in English version. He corrected the mistake which should have been corrected at the earlier stage. As per the established practice, if the Draftsman makes any cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both the Houses are required to be in English. He submitted that the authoritative text of the Bill which was passed by the Lok Sabha contained rate of duty as 12% ad valorem . He submitted that thus the bill was passed by the Lok Sabha in which duty mentioned under the relevant sub-heading is 12% ad valorem which was unauthorisedly and illegally changed to 15% by a Draftsman without authority of the Hon ble Speaker. He submitted that the said Bill was a money Bill within the meaning of Article 109 of the Constitution of India. The role of Lok Sabha was important inasmuch as the Rajya Sabha could have only made recommendations while sending back the Bill to Lok Sabha and the Lok Sabha was not bound to accept the said recommendations. He submitted that the bill which was passed by the Lok Sabha containing the rate of duty at 12% must be accepted as a Bill passed by both the Houses. He submitted that what is passed by the requisite majority of the Lok Sabha is the Bill containing the rate of duty as 12% ad valorem against the sub-heading 8426. He submitted that the rate of 12% mentioned in the said Act of 1985 published in the Official Gazette is illegal inasmuch as the rate wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctice, printed copies of English and Hindi versions were sent to the Legislative Department and the Official Languages Wing, respectively, of the Ministry of Law for scrutiny. The Draftsman, Legislative Department, did not make any change in the tariff rate of 12% against sub-heading No. 8426.00 in the English version of the Bill. Therefore, the errata to English Bill circulated along with the Bill also did not refer to the aforesaid tariff rate. Thus, the Hindi version of the Bill carried duty @ 15% while the English version carried duty @ 12% against sub-heading No. 3426.00. After introduction, the advance copy of the English Bill, as passed by Lok Sabha. was prepared and sent to Legislative Department for scrutiny. At this stage, the Draftsman changed the tariff rate from 12% to 15% against sub-heading No. 8426.00 in the English version thereby correcting the mistake which he was supposed to correct when the printed copy of the English Bill, to be introduced in Lok Sabha, was sent to him for scrutiny. As per established practice, if the Draftsman makes any changes in the As passed by Lok Sabha copy of the Bill, he has to clearly indicate those changes in his forwarding no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Hon ble President of India for assent which received the assent of Hon ble President of India on 19th January, 1986. 11. At this stage, it will be necessary to make a reference to certain provisions of the Constitution of India. Article 120 of the Constitution of India provides thus :- 120. Language to be used in Parliament. - (1) Notwithstanding anything in Part XVII, but subject to the provisions of article 348, business in Parliament shall be transacted in Hindi or in English : Provided that the Chairman of the Council of States or Speaker of the House of the People, or person acting as such, as the case may be, may permit any member who cannot adequately express himself in Hindi or in English to address the House in his mother-tongue. (2) Unless Parliament by law otherwise provides, this article shall, after the expiration of a period of fifteen years from the commencement of this Constitution, have effect as if the words or in English were omitted therefrom. 12. In this context, a reference will have to be made to Article 348 of the Constitution of India which reads thus :- 348. Language to be used in the Supreme Court and in the High Courts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t case, the authoritative text in English language of the said Act of 1985 passed by the Lok Sabha shows the rate of duty at 15% ad valorem against the sub-heading 8426. The said authoritative printed text of the English version of the Bill passed by Lok Sabha which was forwarded to Rajya Sabha and which was returned by Rajya Sabha without any recommendation also contains the identical provision. Thus, what was forwarded to Rajya Sabha was the Bill in which the ad valorem duty against the sub-heading 8426 is shown as 15%. It is the said Bill which has received assent of the Hon ble President of India. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Grand Kakatiya Sheraton Hotel Towers Employees Workers Union v. Srinivasa Resorts Ltd. Ors . (supra). This was a case where the Petitioner before the High Court contended that Section 47(3) and Section 47(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 were unconstitutional. The said contention was accepted by the High Court. The Apex Court held that as the said State Act and the Central Act operated in the same field, there was a conflict between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitting the word a while Lohra is written as mentioned in English version. It is also clear when we compare Part XVI of Second Schedule relating to the State of West Bengal, the word Lohar both in English as well as in the Hindi version was not mentioned. Court would take judicial notice of the Acts of Parliament and would interpret the Schedule in the light of the English version being an authoritative text of the Act and the Second Schedule. 16. In the facts of the case in hand, the authoritative text which is published of the Bill passed by Lok Sabha is a corrected version which specifies the rate of duty as 15% ad valorem against the concerned sub-heading. The authoritative text of the Act which received the assent also contains the same rate. The note of the Joint Secretary shows that the proof copies of English and Hindi versions of the Bill forwarded by Ministry of Law to Lok Sabha contained rate of 15% ad valorem against the sub-heading 8246. Mistake occurred while printing the Bill by Lok Sabha Secretariat before introducing the same in the House. The only flaw is that while correcting the mistake which had crept in the English version of the Bill introduced bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Underline added) 19. Article 122 of the Constitution of India has been considered by the Apex Court by its Constitution Bench in the case of Ramdas Athawale v Union of India Others , [(2010) 4 SCC 1]. In Paragraph 36, the Apex Court observed thus:- 36 This Court Under Article 143, Constitution of India, In re (Special Reference No. 1 of 1964) AIR 1965 SC 745 : (1965) 1 SCR 413 (also known as Keshav Singh case 2) while construing Article 212(1) observed that it may be possible for a citizen to call in question in the appropriate court of law, the validity of any proceedings inside the legislature if his case is that the said proceedings suffer not from mere irregularity of procedure, but from an illegality. If the impugned procedure is illegal and unconstitutional, it would be open to be scrutinised in a court of law, though such scrutiny is prohibited if the complaint against the procedure is no more than this that the procedure was irregular. The same principle would equally be applicable in the matter of interpretation of Article 122 of the Constitution. 20. In the present case, the Hindi version of the Bill presented before the Lok Sabha contai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
