KAISER-I-HIND PVT. LTD. AND ANR. versus NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION (MAHARASHTRA NORTH) LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 555 · Decided: 25-09-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

KAISER-I-HIND PVT. LTD. AND ANR. 
v. 
NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION (MAHARASHTRA NORTH) 
LTD. AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 25, 2002 
[G.B. PATTANAIK, M.B. SHAH, DORAISWAMY RAJU, S.N. 
V ARIA VA AND D. M. DHARMADHJKARI, JJ] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 254(2): 
Inconsistency between proposed State laws and earlier laws made by 
parliament-Grant of 'assent' by President to State legislation-Contention 
A 
B 
c 
that State law would prevail and such 'assent' would be deemed to be an 
assent qua all earlier enactments made by Parliament-On appeal, held that 
'consideration' by President and his 'assent' is limited to proposal made by D 
State Government, State legislatio11 would prevail only qua the laws for 
which repugnancy was pointed 0111 and 'assent' of President was sought 
for-Proposal by State is sine qua non for 'consideration' and 'assent'-
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971-Bombay 
Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. 
Summoning by court of the file submitted to the President before grant 
of assent-To enquire and ascertain the circumstances in which 'assent' 
given under Article 254(2) to law made by State-Permissibility of-
Discussed 
' 
E 
Assent to legislations given by President whether given qua the F 
repugnancy between State legislation and earlier law made by Par/iament-
Justiciahility of-Held, the assent is not subjected to any judicial review--
Mere look at the record for which assent was sought would not mean that 
the Court is deciding whether the assent is rightly, wrongly or er~oneously 
granted-Consideration by Court is limited to the extent that whether the G 
State has sought assent qua particular earlier law or laws made by the 
Parliament prevailing in the State or it has sought general assent. 
Assent to legislations by President-Grant of-ls part of legislative 
procedure and· not exercise of legislative power of President-Constitution 
of India, 1950-Article 123. 
555 
H 
556 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Extension of temporary enactment if amounting to enactment of new 
law requiring assent of President-Held, extending the duration of a 
temporary enactment does not amount to enactment of a new law requiring 
assent of President-However in case of repugnancy such extension may 
require asse/1/ of President. 
B 
Article 372, explanation Ill-Scope of-ls of general application and 
applies to all temporary enactme/1/s enacted pre-constitution. 
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 197 /-
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947-Whether 
C Central Act would prevail-Held, once the Central Act came into force the 
existing State Act would be void so far as it is repugnant to the law made 
by the Parliament, thus the law made by the Parliament would prevail. 
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupams) Act, 197 /-
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 19(/)(j)-P.P. Eviction Act empowering 
D Government companies and statutory corporations to evict their tenants 
through summary procedure-Contention that such procedure abridges the 
right conferred by Article 19(/)(j)-Held, such procedure not violative of 
Article (19)(/)(j) if it is reasonable and in conformity with the principles of 
natural justice. 
E 
Words and Phrases: 
'Reserved for consideration' and 'assent '-Meaning of in the co/1/ext 
of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of Jndia, 1950. 
The question which arose in these appeals was whether the "assent" 
p given by the President under Article 254(2) of the Constitution oflndia with 
regard to the repugnancy of the State legislation and the earlier law made by 
the Parliament or the existing law could only be qua the "assent" sought by 
the State with regard to repugnancy of the laws mentioned in the submission 
made to the President for his consideration before grant of assent or would it 
prevail qua other laws for which no assent was sought 
G 
Appellants challenged the vires of Public Premises (Eviction of 
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 contending that P.P. Eviction Act was 
violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(1) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India; and 
that having regard to Article 254(2) provisions of Bombay Rents, Hotel and 
H Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 would prevail over provisions of P.P. 
t
-
r
) 
KAISER-I-HIND PVT.LTD. v. N.T.C. 
557 
Eviction Act. High Court summoned the file submitted before the President A 
before grant of assent to find out t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.