CHEVITI VENKANNA YADAV versus STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS.

Citation: [2016] 7 S.C.R. 689 · Decided: 24-10-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016) 7 S.C.R. 689 
CHEVITI VENKANNA YADAV 
v. 
STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 13604 of2015) 
OCTOBER 24, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
Telangana (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 
1966 - s. 5 [As amended by Telangana (Agricultural Produce and 
Livestock) Markets (Amendment) Act, 2015} - Validity of -
Constitution of Agricultural Market Committee by erstwhile State 
of Andhra Pradesh l!nder Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce 
and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 -After formation of new State of 
Telangana on 2.6.2014 (on bifurcation of the State of Andhra 
Pradesh), the State promulgated Ordinance No. 1 of 2014 to amend 
the principal Act - Thereby in s. 5, number of Members of Committee 
was reduced from 18 to 14 and the term of the Market Committee 
was reduced from 3 years to 2 years - The Ordinance also provided 
that the existing Members shall cease to hold office and the 
Government would be competent to appQint persons to exercise the 
powers and perform the functions of the Market Committee -
Ordinance challenged - High Court held the amendment as 
discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution as the 
existing Chairman/Vice Chairman/Members of the Market Committee 
were sought to be removed prematurely taking away the procedural 
safeguards which would otherwise be available to the future 
Chairman/Vice Chairman/Members -After the judgment, State issued 
Ordinance No. 1 of 2015 to amends. 5 of the Act [Jn due course the 
Ordinance I of 2015 came into force as AmendmentAct 5 of 2015 
called Telangana (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets 
(Amendment) Act, 2015] - The Amendment was made retrospective 
w.e.f 1./.2012 and also added a validating provision - The 
Ordinance was challenged by the appellants by filing writ petition 
- High Court dismissed the petition upholding the amendment - On 
appeal, held: The State legislature had competence to amend the 
law with retrospective effect - The legislature by the impugned~ 
amendment substituting the word 'appointed' by the word 
689 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
690 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 7 S.C.R. 
'nominated'with retrospective effect, removed the distinction between 
the existing members and the members who were to come in fature -
Thus an appointment initially made by nomination can be terminated 
by the State at its pleasure - Such provision neither offends any 
Article of the Constitution nor any public policy or democratic norms 
enshrined in the Constitution - The amended provision also does 
not suffer from the vice of equality clause enshrined u!Art. 14 of 
the Constitution, so far as Market Committee and Special Market 
Committee are concerned, as both function in different areas -
Constitution of India - Art. 14. 
Legislation: 
Statutory overruling - Held: When a law is enacted with 
retrospective effect, it is not an encroachment upon judicial power 
when the legislature does not directly overrule or reverse a judicial 
dictum - Legislature cannot, by way of an enactment, declare a 
decision of a court as erroneous or nullity - However, it has the 
power to rectify a defect in law noticed in the decision of the court 
- When such an amendment is made, the purpose thereof is not to 
overrule the decision of the Court, but to enact a fresh law with 
retrospective effect to alter the foundation and meaning of the 
legislation and to remove the base on which the judgment was 
founded - This does not amount to statutory overruling by the 
legislature. 
Co/ourable legislation - Doctrine of co/ourable legislation 
does not involve any question of bona fide or malafide on the part of 
the legislature - The whole doctrine revolves itself into question of 
competence of a particular legislature to enact a particular law -
Once it is held that the legislature has the power to enact the law as 
per its wisdom, and that too with retrospective effect, it cannot be 
said that the enactment is a co/ourable exercise. 
Competence of legislature - To enact a law w.ej. the period 
when the legislature itself was not existent - Held: After legislature 
comes into existence, it has the competence to enact any law 
retrospectively or prospectively within the constitutional parameters. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. After the legislature comes into existence, it has 
CHEVITI VENKANNA YADAV v. STATE OF TELANGANA 
691 
AND ORS. 
the competence to enact any law retrospecti

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.