KRISHNA CHANDRA GANGOPADHYAYA ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1975] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 151 · Decided: 18-04-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

J 
KRISHNA CHANDRA QANGOPADHYAYA ETC. 
T, 
UNION OF INDIA & QlRS. 
April 18, 1975 
[A. N. RAY, C. J., K. K. MATHEW AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER] 
Constitution of India-Seventh Schedule, List I Item 54, List Tl Item 23. 
Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1951---!Section 15-
~ihar Land Refonns Act 1950 [Section 10(2)]-Bihar Minor Minerals Conces-
sion Rules, 1964 [Rule 20(2)). 
Interpretation of Statutes-Validation Act-Retrospecti've effect-Delegated 
Legislation-Legislation by incorporation. 
This Court in the case .of Baij Nath Kedia declared the seoond proviso 
to secti.on 10(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms 
Act, 
1950. unconstitutional 
on the 
ground 
that 
the 
Bihar 
Legislature had 
no 
jurisdiction 
to 
enact it and that Parliament alone was competent to legislate. 
Th~s Court 
a1'o held that rule 20(2) framed by the Bihar Government as delegate of 
the Parliament under section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (RegUlation and 
Development) Act Of 19 57 was unconstitutional since the rule making power 
'Conferred by .section 15 of the Central Act did not contemplate nlteration of 
terms of leases already in existence before the Act was passed. 
Second proviso to section 10(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act reads as 
under : 
"Provided further that the tenns and conditions of the said lease 
in regard to minor minerals as 
defined in the Mines and Mi...,erals 
IRegnlation and Development) Act, 1957 (Act LXVII of 1957) shall, 
in &0 far as they are inconsistent with the rules of that Act, stand 
substituted by the corresponding terms and conditions by those rules 
and if further ascertainment and settlement of the terms will become 
necessary then necessary proceedings for that purpose shall be under-
taken by the Collector." 
Rule 20(2) authorises the alteration of the terms of leases which were 
in exiStence before the Central Act was passed. 
After the judgment in Baij Nath Kedia's case was delivered, the Parliament 
passed a Validation Act of 1969. 
Section 2 ( 1) and (2) of the Validation 
Act reads as under : 
lSl 
11. 
c 
D 
11 
"21(1). The laws specified in the Schedule shall be and shall be 
G 
deemed always to have been, as valid as if the provisions contained 
therein had been enacted by Parliament. 
2(2). Notwithstan~ing any judgment, decree or order of any court, 
all actions taken, things done, rules made, notifications issued or 
purported to have been taken, done, made or issued and rents or 
royalties realised under any such laws shall be deemed to have been 
yalidl_Y take!1, done, made, . issued or realised, as the case may be, as 
H 
if tbIS section had been 1n force at all material times when such 
notifications, were issued, or rents or royalties were realised, and no 
suit or other prceedings shall be maintained or continued in any court 
for the refund of rents or royalties realised under any such laws." 
\ 
(q the Schedule to the said Validation Act, section 10 of the Bihar Land 
Reforms Act, 1950 and sub-rule (2) of Rule 20 of the Bihar Minor Mineral 
f~oneellsion Rules, 1%4, inter alia, have been set out. 
IO SC/75-ll 
SUPREME COURT IUlPOR.TS 0975] SUPP. S.C.lt. 
In the present petition under Article 32, validity of the Validation 
has been challenged by the petitioner on the grounds 
Act 
."If. a law is void as being pa&Sed by an incompetent 
Legislature) 
validation by a subsequent Act passed by a competent J..egislature can 
only be effected by the subsequent Jaw enacting the provisions of 
the 
old Act expressly or by incorporation. It cannot be done by a com-
petent Legislature, laying down in the subsequent Act that the former 
B 
Act passed by the incompetent Legislature is deemed to be valid. 
D 
·E 
F 
G 
H 
No liability to levy rent or royalty can be created retroactively with-
out ~wo. ~lear stages or ste~: firstly, a law must be enacted creating 
the habihty; next, such provISion should be made retrospective. This 
two-stage procedure is absent in the statute under attack and there-
fore the purpose, whatever it be, has misfired." 
The respondent contended that the Parliament adopted the form of incor-
poration referencially to a State Act and subordinate legislation given in the 
sche~ule to the Validation Act. 
The Validation Act was a product of the 
Parliament. It was not a case of Parliament simply validating an invalid law 
passed by the Bi bar Legislation. 
The Parliament re-enacted the Validation 
Act with retrOipective effect in its own right adding one Central 

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