TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 1245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nation. In such circumstance, it becomes the duty of this Court to dispense justice, and rectify the harm caused to those at the receiving end of the discrimination. The impugned judgment passed by the Full Bench of the High Court is not liable to be sustained and stands set aside. As a consequence, the Writ Petition filed by the Appellants before the High Court stands allowed and the Appellants are held entitled to the reliefs claimed in the said Writ Petition. Appeal allowed. - Hon'ble Judges Krishna Murari and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. For the Appellant : Prashant Kanha, Adv., Gaurav Shrivastava, AOR, Salman Khurshid, S.G. Hasnain, Sr. Advs., Aftab Ali Khan, AOR, Syed Mohd. Fazal, Azra Rehman, M.Z. Choudhary, Advs., Pradeep Kant, Sr. Adv., Rohit Kumar Singh, AOR, Simranjeet Singh Rekhi, Harsh Jain and Shubham Kumar, Advs. For the Respondents : Ravindra Kumar Raizada, Sr. A.A.G., Alka Sinha, Adv., Anuvrat Sharma, AOR, Ravindra Kumar, Sr. Adv., Binay Kumar Das, AOR, Neha Das, Priyanka Das, Advs., Pradeep Kant, Sr. Adv., Rohit Kumar Singh, AOR, Kamini Jaiswal, Rani Mishra, Advs. and Omanakuttan K.K., AOR JUDGMENT Krishna Murari, J. 1. These appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C 500 and also with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? (ii) Whether the classification made under the U.P. Land Acquisition (determination of compensation and declaration of award by agreement) Rules, 1997, the distinction made among 'Pushtaini' and 'Gair-Pushtaini' farmers, is a classification having reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved? 5. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.03.2018, the Full Bench answered question No. 1 in negative and question No. 2 in affirmative and upheld the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of Smt. Madhuri Srivastava (Supra). As a consequence of the answers to the questions framed, the Full Bench held that nothing remains to be decided in the Writ Petitions filed by the present Appellants and the same were dismissed. 6. Before we enter into the factual matrix of the case, we find it expedient to first trace out the etymology of the words Pushtaini and Gair Pushtaini used in the impugned classification, for language, once adopted inside the realm of law, materializes itself a much more powerful being, one which must be understood in the right historical context. 7. The wor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government, exercising its powers Under Section 3 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, by notification dated 28.01.1991 created the township of Greater Noida, in an area of 38000 hectare, comprising of 124 villages of Gautam Budh Nagar. 10. For its planned development, the Respondent - G. Noida started acquisition of land within its territorial area of operation under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as '1894 Act'). In the same connection, notifications dated 03.10.2005 and 05.01.2006 were issued Under Sections 4(1) and Section 6(1) of 1894 Act for acquisition of total area of 580.1734 hectares of the land for plan development situate in different villages falling within the jurisdiction of G. Noida. The said notifications, which also included the land of the present Appellants, were subject matter of challenge before the High Court in a bunch of Writ Petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings mainly on the ground of arbitrarily invoking urgency Clause Under Sections 17(1) read with Section 17(4) of the 1894 Act. The bunch of the said Writ Petitions came to be decided by the another Full Bench of the High Court titled a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olders were carved out for payment of compensation and those who were classified as 'Pushtaini' landholders, a higher amount of compensation was decided to be awarded to them in the name of their rehabilitation. 13. Subsequently, on 15.07.2006, an agreement was entered into between Greater Noida and the Appellants and other landholders Under Rule 4(2) of the Land Acquisition Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as '1997 Rules') and in accordance with the resolution passed by Greater Noida in its 26th Meeting, the 'Pushtaini' landholders were paid compensation @ Rs. 322 per sq. yard and the 'Gair-Pushtaini' landholders including the Appellants herein were paid a lesser amount of compensation @ Rs. 280 per sq. yard. 14. The landholders continued with their agitation making demand of further compensation at the enhanced rate which resulted in constituting a Committee to consider the demand of enhanced rate of compensation in the form of bonus/ex-gratia compensation. The Committee submitted its report after making a recommendation for payment of the amount @ Rs. 310 per square metre on account of Ex-gratia to the Ancestral Agriculturists of the lan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion index in each financial year. Vide Order No. 902/778 3-0 7-1 43 N/04. of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, a High Level Committee under Chairmanship of the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut was constituted. Committee has recommended its compensation value @ Rs. 800-850 per square metre, in sequence thereto, in the meeting of Greater Noida Authority Board held on 5.01.2008, while assessing the compensation @ Rs. 850 per square metre, decision was taken to enforce this rate with effect from 1.04.2007. Even the particulars of these types of Memos are also mentioned in the recommendation dated 4.01.2008 of the Committee constituted under chairmanship of the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut vide Order dated 31.12.2007 of the Government issued previously, whereby it is clear that at that time also, The Villagers of the above Villages were making demand for enhancement in compensation. The certain Memos of the Villagers were forwarded to the Government for appropriate guidelines/directions while enclosing them as per Authority letter No. 931/land-record/L.P./2008 dated 7.03.2008/903/land-record/LP/2008 dated 10.03.2008, Land Record/la/2008 dated 13.03.2008, 1038/land-reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hem and discussion may be made from them in this regard. In sequence of above, the meeting of Committee was convened on 22.09.2008 and 11.10.2008 respectively in the Conference Room of the Greater Noida Authority, wherein, while receiving the memo from the Agriculturists of Village and their representatives, the matter was discussed and consulted in detail, wherein, mainly, following people have taken part- 1. Ramesh Singh Rawal, 2. Yogendra Singh Rawal, 3. Subedar Ramchandra, 4. Omprakash, 5. Mahi Singh Bhati, 6. Lokesh Bhati, 7. Maha Singh Bhati, 8. Pratap Singh Bhati, 9. Pratap Singh Sarpanch, 10. Prem Mukhiya, 11. Inder Singh (Advocate), 12. Ajit Singh Nagar, 13. Kamal Bhati, 14. Mange Ram Bharti 15. Bhule Singh, 16. Rakesh 17. Braham Singh, 18. Atmender, 19. Maharaj Singh, 20. Mehndi Hassan, 21. Umesh, 22. Vikram Singh, 23. Satbir Pradhan, 24. Naresh Upadhyay, 25. Ajith Mukhiya, 26. Rampal Havaldar, 27. Nemvir, Pradhan, Garba and etc. etc. 3. Grounds of the demand and memo submitted by the Agriculturist - There records were received i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount was distributed @ Rs. 385 per square metre to the Ancestral Agriculturists and @ Rs. 334.78 per square metre to the ancestral Agriculturists. That the land of the following Villages were acquired for well-planned development of the Greater Noida in the Financial Years 2006-2007 including Village Gonda, Bachheda and other Villages and that the possession of the above land was taken after 01.04.2006 and the Agriculturists of the above land are making demand for enhancement of compensation. S.No. Name of Village acquired area (in heatare) date of transferring possession of the land to the Authority 1. Surajpur 69330 01.06.2006 2. Ajaybpur 37308 01.06.2006 3. Garbara 595830 01.06.2006 4. Gondi Basera 580.1730 14.06.2006 5. Shani 299.5660 30.10.2006 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... commendation - As per the information provided by the Special Executive Officer (LA), Greater Noida, most of the Agriculturist of the acquired land in the financial year 2006-2007 of Village Ghodi Bachheda, including other Villages, as per the Government Order dated 29.09.2001, under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997, have received Compensation. Therefore, it would not be possible under the Rule to make any enhancement/change in the compensation rates of the award to be declared. Accordingly, it would be appropriated only to give additional amount on account of Ex gratia to be awarded as relief to the Agriculturists of these Villages. In the report dated 21.07.2008 of the Committee constituted under the chairmanship of the learned District Magistrate, recommendation has been given to award additional amount @ Rs. 175-200 per square metre. But, in opinion of the Committee, there is justification to make partial enhancement in above amount. Therefore, in view of the above detailed factual analysis, consultation, discussion, consideration made from the Agriculturists and assurance giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Garbara 595830 01.06.2006 4. Gondi Basera 580.1730 14.06.2006 5. Shani 299.5660 30.10.2006 6. Dadha 215.6010 27.10.2006 7. Mathurapur 122.2699 27.10.2006 8. Daabra 111.8868 31.01.2007 Which have been submitted to the Government from time to time for appropriate directions and guidelines. For examination of the demand of compensation and management of Agriculturist, following a Committee of District Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Additional Chief Executive Officer, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida was constituted vide Order dated 10.06.2008 of the Chairman, Greater Noida, and the above committee has recommended to make consideration on awarding additional amount @ Rs. 175-200 per square metre to the cultivators, whose land was acquired in the financial year 2006 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21.10.2008 of the Additional Collector (L.A.), out of the questioned acquired land of the above Villages, the area measuring 1392.9586 hectare, is ancestral area. So, in case of making payment at the enhanced rates to the ancestral Agriculturist, that is, on making payment @ Rs. 310 per square metre as recommended by the Committee, then, their shall financial burden of Rs. 4318171660 (Rupees four Arab twenty one crores eighty one lakhs seventy one thousand six hundred and sixty only). The report of the Committee is submitted for consideration of the Authority Board. 18. Vide order dated 15.01.2009, the State Government granted its approval for payment of enhanced compensation/ex-gratia/bonus to the 'Pushtaini' landholders. 19. For the sake of convenience, the break-up of compensation granted to both the categories of landowners is being produced hereunder: Dates Rate Of Compensation for Pushtaini Landowners Rate Of Compensation for Gair-pushtaini Landowners Difference in Compensation 28.10.1997 (GNOIDA) making 2 categories for compensation July-Sept. 2006(Agreement between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RESPONDENTS 21. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondents Contended that: I. The UP Land Acquisition Rules have been formed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. These Rules prescribe for method of compensation between the acquirer and the acquiree through an agreement. The Appellants, by way of an agreement, voluntarily accepted the compensation being granted to them. Further, while accepting the compensation, the Appellants herein also submitted an Affidavit stating that the compensation is agreed upon and accepted by the parties. It was only three years later that the Appellants decided to file a writ challenging the compensation, after entering into the agreement and explicitly agreeing to the compensation amount. II. The Appellants had entered into an agreement as per the law of the land and had accepted the compensation granted to them. In such a scenario, there exists no legal remedy of the Appellants to re-open the agreement on grounds of a subsequent increase in compensation to a different party. There is no remedy to re-open the agreement by way of approaching the Court in the statue. III. The distinction created between the two classes of land owners has been do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to seek enhanced compensation? 25. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of Greater Noida that the Appellants herein did not exhaust their remedy Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and approach the High Court, and has sidestepped a procedural requirement. Section 18 of the 1894 Act reads as under: Reference to Court. - (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made, (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award; (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector Under Section 12, Sub-section (2), or within six months f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no authority to shed blood; nor let sentence be pronounced in any Court upon cases, except according to a known and certain law Nor should a man be deprived of his life, who did not first know that he was risking it.' (Quoted in Coquillette, Francis Bacon pp 244 and 248, from Aphorism 8 and Aphorism 39? A Treatise on Universal Justice). 30. On the basis of the above-mentioned reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the Appellants, because of their signing of the agreement, have not forfeited their right to seek revised compensation, because, the cause of action accrued to them much after entering into the agreement. The issue No. 1 is answered accordingly in the negative and in favour of the Appellants. Whether the classification made by and executive fiat between Pushtaini Landowners and Gair-pushtaini Landowners for payment of compensation at different rates is liable to be struck down as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution? 31. The High Court, while upholding the classification between 'Pushtaini' and 'Gair-pushtaini' landowners, stated that there is no discrimination being caused to similarly situated parties, and the judgment re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble differentia and that in no manner causes any discrimination among the similarly situated person. The law laid down in the case of Smt. Madhuri Srivastava (supra) has taken adequate care of all these provisions while concluding that the Pushtaini and Gairpushtaini farmers are two different classes and the resolution to award additional compensation on different rates is not at all discriminatory. 32. To assess the validity of the impugned classification, we must put it through the rigours of Article 14 and see whether it survives the baptism. It is a well established principle of law, that the state, as per Article 14, cannot deny equality before law and equal protection of the law. REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION TEST 33. For any classification to survive the test of Article 14, the classification must be based on intelligible differentia, and it must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the law. At this stage, it is important to note that the object sought to be achieved must also be lawful, and if the object of the law itself is found to be discriminatory, then such discrimination must be struck down. This has been held in a catena of judgments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable and just relation to the thing in respect to which the classification is made; and classification made without any reasonable basis should be regarded as invalid [Southern Railway Co. v. Greene, 54 L Ed 536: 216 US 400 at p. 412 (1910)1910 SCC OnLine US SC 59 ]. These propositions have not been controverted before us and it is not disputed also on behalf of the Respondents that the presumption is always in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him who attacks it, to show that there has been transgression of constitutional principles. I am not at all impressed by the argument of the learned Attorney General that to enable the Respondents to invoke the protection of Article 14 of the Constitution it has got to be shown that the legislation complained of is a piece of hostile legislation. The expressions discriminatory and hostile are found to be used by American Judges often simultaneously and almost as synonymous expressions in connection with discussions on the equal protection clause. If a legislation is discriminatory and discriminates one person or class of persons against others similarly situated and denies to the former the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r: By Article 14 of the Constitution the State is enjoined not to deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. The Article forbids class legislation, but not reasonable classification in making laws. The test of permissible classification under an Act lies in two cumulative conditions: (1) classification under the Act must be founded on an intelligible differentia distinguishing persons, transactions or things grouped together from others left out of the group; (ii) the differential has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act: there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act. The legislative policy as to the necessity is a matter of legislative judgment and the Court will not examine the propriety of it. The legislation need not be all embracing and it is for the Legislature to determine what categories will be embraced. In Dalmia case (Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar, 1959 SCR 279) it was said that the two tests of classification were first that there should be an intelligible differentia which distinguished persons or things grouped from oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of the soil, who are likely to become landless due to the acquisition of their land. 38. While prima facie, the classification and the object sought to be achieved through the said classification seems reasonable, however, the devil lies in the details. The justification given by the GNOIDA Authority, and the Full-bench of the High Court assumes that only Pushtaini landowners permanently reside in the subject land or that the subject land is the primary source of income only for Pushtaini landowners, and this assumption has been backed by no empirical data produced by the authority. 39. While the classification made by Greater Noida has been based on the object of giving fair compensation, however, such a laudable object of the classification would stand breached by the effects of such a classification, creating a dissonance between the object and its effect. Many Gair-pushtaini landholders, whose main area of residence or their main source of income is also the subject land, would be subject to great discrimination and injustice, if the same compensation that has been granted to the pushtaini landholders is not extended to them. 40. Further, it is also to be noted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , to see whether the local authority have contravened the law by acting in excess of the powers which Parliament has confided in them. The appeal must be dismissed with costs. 43. The Wednesbury principle was first introduced to Indian Jurisprudence in the case of Om Kumar and Ors. v. Union Of India (2001) 2 SCC 386. Here, again, a similar question was posed before the Supreme Court, as to when can the Court exercise its power of judicial review in cases of executive law making. This Court, reiterated the same principles laid down in the Wednesbury case. The relevant extracts from the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: Lord Greene said in 1948 in the Wednesbury case [(1948) 1 KB 223 : (1947) 2 All ER 680 (CA)] that when a statute gave discretion to an administrator to take a decision, the scope of judicial review would remain limited. He said that interference was not permissible unless one or the other of the following conditions was satisfied, namely the order was contrary to law, or relevant factors were not considered, or irrelevant factors were considered; or the decision was one which no reasonable person could have taken. These principles were consistently follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regulating exercise of fundamental rights, the appropriate or least-restrictive choice of measures has been made by the legislature or the administrator so as to achieve the object of the legislation or the purpose of the administrative order, as the case may be. Under the principle, the Court will see that the legislature and the administrative authority maintain a proper balance between the adverse effects which the legislation or the administrative order may have on the rights, liberties or interests of persons keeping in mind the purpose which they were intended to serve . The legislature and the administrative authority are, however, given an area of discretion or a range of choices but as to whether the choice made infringes the rights excessively or not is for the Court. That is what is meant by proportionality. 29. The above principle of proportionality has been applied by the European Court to protect the rights guaranteed under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950 and in particular, for considering whether restrictions imposed were restrictions which were necessary -- within Articles 8 to 11 of the said Convent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urse which reason dictated. Legislation which arbitrarily or excessively invaded the right could not be said to contain the quality of reasonableness unless it struck a proper balance between the rights guaranteed and the control permissible Under Articles 19(2) to (6). Otherwise, it must be held to be wanting in that quality. Patanjali Sastri, C.J. in State of Madras v. V.G. Row [(1952) 1 SCC 410 : AIR 1952 SC 196 : 1952 SCR 597: 1952 Cri LJ 966], observed that the Court must keep in mind the nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing conditions at the time . This principle of proportionality vis- -vis legislation was referred to by Jeevan Reddy, J. in State of A.P. v. McDowell Co. [(1996) 3 SCC 709] recently. This level of scrutiny has been a common feature in the High Court and the Supreme Court in the last fifty years. Decided cases run into thousands. 32. So far as Article 14 is concerned, the Courts in India examined whether the classification was based on intelligible differentia and whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... islation which offended fundamental freedoms. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 45. Under Article 3(1) of the Human Rights Act, 1998 the English Court can now declare the legislative action as incompatible with the rights and freedoms referred to in the schedule. The Minister is then to move Parliament for necessary amendment to remove the incompatibility. While doing so, the English Court, can now apply strict scrutiny or proportionality to legislative and administrative action. The principle is now treated as central to English law (See Human Rights Law and Practice by Lord Lester of Herne Hill, Q.C. David Pannick QC, 1999, para 3.16). The more the threshold of Wednesbury irrationality is lowered when fundamental human rights are on play, the easier it will become to establish judicial review as an effective remedy with Article 13 of the 1998 Act (see, ibid, Supplement August, 2000, para 4.13.12). 48. This test of proportionality has been developed by the Indian Courts throughout the years and has now attained the form of a five-pronged test, as stated in the K.S. Puttaswamy and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (2017) 10 SCC 1 judgment, and mor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , thereby acting as a threat against free exercise of fundamental rights, ought to necessarily be factored in the delicate balancing act that the judiciary is called upon to do in determining the constitutionality of such state action - whether legislative, executive, administrative or otherwise. The relevant paragraph of the judgment has been mentioned herein: The principle of proportionality has been recognized in a slew of cases by this Court, most notably in the seven-judge bench decision in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. The principle of proportionality envisages an analysis of the following conditions in order to determine the validity of state action that could impinge on fundamental rights: (i) A law interfering with fundamental rights must be in pursuance of a legitimate state aim; (ii) The justification for rights-infringing measures that interfere with or limit the exercise of fundamental rights and liberties must be based on the existence of a rational connection between those measures, the situation in fact and the object sought to be achieved; (iii) The measures must be necessary to achieve the object and must not infringe rights to an extent gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof; thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of serving such land from his other land; fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings; fifthly, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change, and sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration Under Section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land. 54. A bare perusal of Section 23 would show that, the grounds for classification as purported by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions of the said Act allowed the acquisition of lands at rates lower than the rates as prescribed in the Land Acquisition Act. What is relevant to our case, is that the Court, while deciding this matter, held that the authority, while acquiring land, cannot distinguish between types of owners, as the object of achieving land for public purposes is met with, irrespective of the type of owner whose land is being acquired. The relevant paragraphs from the judgment reads as under: It is now well-settled that the State can make a reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. It is equally well-settled that the classification in order to be reasonable must satisfy two tests: (i) the classification must be founded on intelligible differentia and (ii) the differentia must have a rational relation with the object sought to be achieved by the legislation in question. In this connection it must be borne in mind that the object itself should be lawful. The object itself cannot be discriminatory, for otherwise, for instance, if the object is to discriminate against one Section of the minority the discrimination cannot be justified on the ground that there is a reasonabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ust infer the compensation to be provided by the executive actions within the confines of Section 23 of the Act. 62. Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act states out the grounds for granting compensation in cases of acquisition of land under the Act. One such reason for the grant of compensation is rehabilitation, and it is this need for granting compensation for rehabilitation under the Act that is echoed by the impugned notification. A bare reading of both the executive actions in consonance with the Act would show that the need for giving compensation for rehabilitation is valid in law and is backed by the parent statute. The mischief then, is only limited to the arbitrary classification made by such actions. In such a case, we are of the opinion that since the mischief lies only within the classification, it can be severed, and the remaining part of the executive actions that sets out to grant compensation for the purpose of rehabilitation remains valid in law. 63. Once the classification is removed, and the executive actions are read in consonance with the parent act, we would see that since the Act, and now even the executive actions do not discriminate in terms of com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
