TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also elected as Sarpanch of the said village. He was thereafter elected as Councillor of Zilla Parishad. The State of Maharashtra enacted Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 ( the Act , for short). In view of amendment of Section 14(1)(J-2) of the said Act, he was held to have disqualified himself to hold the said post by the Additional Collector, Jalna. An appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellant herein was dismissed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner by an order dated 2.8.2004. A writ petition preferred by the appellant, questioning the legality of said orders was dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment and order. The appellant is, thus, before us. The short question raised by Mr. Sanjay V. Kharde, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urview all persons who would be members of the Panchayat in futuro, but also those who were sitting members. In other words, the bar created to hold the post of member of Panchayat would bring within its purview also those who were continuing to hold post. It may be true the amendment came into effect on 8.8.2003. The legislative policy emanating from the aforesaid provision, in our opinion, is absolutely clear and unambiguous. By introducing the said provision, the legislature, inter alia, intended that for the purpose of bringing grassroot democracy, a person should not be permitted to hold two posts created in terms of Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act. It is true that ordinarily a statute is construed to have prospective effect, but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce that an act, legal at the time of doing it, should be made unlawful by some new enactment. This principle has now been recognised by our Constitution and established as a Constitutional restriction on legislative power. While construing the beneficial provisions of 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in Boucher Pierre Andre vs. Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi Anr. [(1975) 1 SCC 192], this Court opined: This section, on a plain natural construction of its language, posits for its applicability a fact situation which is described by the clause where an accused person has, on conviction, been sentenced to imprisonment for a term . There is nothing in this clause which suggests, either expres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l-settled that when a literal reading of the provision giving retrospective effect does not produce absurdity or anomaly, the same would not be construed to be only prospective. The negation is not a rigid rule and varies with the intention and purport of the legislature, but to apply it in such a case is a doctrine of fairness. When a law is enacted for the benefit of the community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision, the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. The appellant does not and cannot question the competence of the legislature in this behalf. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the High Court was correct in its view. We, thus, find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
