LexGURUDEVDATIA VKSSS MARYADIT AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A GURUDEVDATIA VKSSS MARYADIT AND ORS. "*- - v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. MARCH 22, 2001 B [G.B. PATIANAIK, UMESH C. BANERJEE AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960-Section 27(3)- ~· Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (Second Amendment) Act, 2000-Proviso added on 23.8.2000 providing for a restricted list of voters'-High Court c dismissed writ petition as.a voter's list had already been prepared-Later, Ordinance promulgated, retrospectively from 23.8.2000, clarifying the posi- lion that the amendment applies to new member societies only-On appeal Held, language used in classificatory ordinance is clear and no outside aid is required to interpret the same-Legislative malice is beyond the pale uf D jurisdiction of law courts when no constitutional invalidity is contended- Ordinance may be totally irrelevant in the present context, but if executive thought if necessary it cannot be described otherwise-Impugned order upheld along with constitutionality of the ordinance-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 123, 213 and 174. E Administrative law-Doctrine of separation of powers-Promulgation j of ordinance-Judicial reluctance noticed while inquii:ing about the status of a statute-However, judiciary does not stand impotent before an obvious instance of exercise of a manifestly unauthorised power-If constitutional safeguards are not infringed, neither cw1 the ordinance nor the motive for such promulga- tion could be exaMined. F Constitution of India-Articles 213 and 174-Promulgation of Olfli- -J.. nance by Govemor-Si@icient Constitutional saf1gualfl and rigours 1xist- Power of legislation crmferred upon the Govtmor only when a satiefaction is recolfled that such emergent circumstances exist-Powtr of the Executive is G only an emergent power to mut an emergency. /nterpretaJion of StaJutes-Objects and Reasons-No necessity to lay much emphasis as they mer11ly note the reasons for introducing an orrlinance- _.( ... TMy need not N looked into as they are not by itself a necessary aid to construction but aid to construction if necessary-TMy may N looked into to H (lSsess the intent of the legislature only in the event of a corifusion. 654 GURUDEVDATIA VKSSS MARYADIT v. STATE 655 ~ ..,. Appellants demanded a restrictive list of voters under the A Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (Second Amendment) Act, 2000 which came into force on 23.8.2000 and introduced as proviso to Section 27 (3) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 for the same. High Court dismissed their writ petition as the voters list had already been finalised before the said amendment. The Governor of the State promulgated an B Ordinance retrospectively effective from 23.8.2000 making it clear that societies and the members who had already obtained membership before the new proviso was added would not be affected. Appellants challenged this Ordinance and the order of the High Court before this Court. Appellants contended that promulgation of the Ordinance was c an act of legislative malice to scuttle a free and fair election, that the objects and reasons of the Ordinance mentioned that the newly .. added proviso had created a confusion while preparing voters list, which negates the basis of the High Court judgment, and that as the ordinance was merely clarificatory, no emergent situation for its promulgation D existed. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Doctrine of separation of powers have been the basis tenet - l of our constitutional framework since in terms therewith each of the three E organs of the State viz., the judiciary, executive and the legislature would ... be operating on its own spheres and fields. Judicial reluctance have been noticed and it is now well-settled both in this country and United States of America as well as in United Kingdom that certainty and finality about the status of a statute, contribute to judicial reluctance to Inquire whether it F compiled with all requisite formalities, but the decisions are not very uncommon which have laid down In no uncertain terms that there Is no blanket rule ohuch judicial reluctance; neither the 'judiciary would stand Impotent' before an obvious Instance of exercise of a manifestly unauthor- lscd power. [662-G·H; 663-A·B) G Indira Nthru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, (1!175) Suppl. SCC 1; relied on. ... )._ Charlts W. Baktr d al v, Joe C. Caar, 369 US 186 7 L. ed. : 2d. 663 and Liva
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.