LexM/S. R. M. D. C. (MYSORE) PRIVATE LTD. versus THE STATE OF MYSORE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1961
Augu•t 8.
•
230
St'PRE:lfE COGRT REPORTS
[l!J62j
M/S. R. :II. D. C. (:\IYSORE) PRIVATE LTD. ,i
t'.
THE STATE OF MYSORE
(J. L. KAI·l:H, K. SUHllA RAO, !II. HUH\' AT{;LLAH,
J. C. SHAH and HAGl!t"llAR DAYAL, J.J.)
Prize (,'o-mpelitions-Slale ena('fmPnt for control a11rl la.con
~uch rompetition,,- Ctnt1al t'nacln1c11t fur 1·ontrol and reyulation of'
such ce,,m]Je.filio11s, ad(,ptP.d /,y ,Sfaft.--S1ibstquent. omend1ncnl of
State P.nact1nent by J'ila[e
J.e.gi3falilT€-·-Cun~titutional validity-
Jf yaorP l.ottt:ries und rrize (,'(,1nittitio1t'i l
1unt1ol an<! ]'ax Act,
1951 (My•o" 27 of 1!151), a,, mnn,,/ed /,y Act 26 of /[),5'!,
8'. 8, 12(1)(b), J.; /'l'o1:isa-·l'ri::e Couipetilioms Act, 195L (42 of
1965), as. 4,5-(.,'onstitution of India, Arf,y. 2.5:!, 254, Seventh
Schedule, List II, entries 34, Gt.
The ~fysorc l~oltcrics aud l'rize (:01npetitions Contrc'l
and Tax Act, I ~51, \••as passed hy the ~fysorc l.cgislaturc and-.
came into force on February I, I 952.
Some of the States
comprising the Union of India
pa~se<l resolutions under
Art. 252(lj of the Constitmion of India authorising Parliament
to IC'gi.,late for the control and regulation of Prize Coin petitions,
a.Jd in pursuance thereof Parliament passed the Prize Competi ...
tions Act, 1955, \\•hi ch ca1ne into force on April 11 l 95G.
On
February 23, 1956, the Mysore Legish>ture adopted the said Act
by pas.sing a resolution under Art. 252< 1) that "for the purp()SC
of securing uuiformity in lcgislation ... the control and regulatioA(
of Prize Competitions and all other n1attcrs ancillary thereto
should be regulated in the State of :..fysorc by the Prize Com.
petitions Act, 1955
11
•
The appellants who "·ere conducting
prize competition< in the iltate of Mrsore since 1948 filed a
petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the
constitutional validity of the Act, and obtained a stay of the
operation of the Act pending disposal of the petition. The
judgment of the Supreme Court dismissing the petition was•
given on April 9, 1957, and on Aogust 31, 1957, an Ordinanc~
\Vas issued, which later wa<; enacted into an Act,
i\fy~ore Act
26of1957, by which the Mysore Act of 1951 was amended
under which, inter a{ia, all prize competitions conducted Let~
ween March 31, 1956, and Au~ust 31, 1957, were brought
within the pur\"iC\\' of tliC amcndcrl Act. 1\s a result of this,
the prize competitions \vhich, as a rc:-ult of the stay of the
operation of the Central Act of 1955, were conducted by the
appellants for the said period became liable for taxation. The
appellants challenged the constitutional validity of the amen<;I,..
mcnt on the grounds that (I) the :\lysorc Legislature by adopt-
ing the Central Act \\·as no longer coiupetcnt to pass any lav.·
in regard to prize competitions because the ·whole matter
-
-
-
-
-
3 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
231
including the povver of taxation \Vas surrendered in favour of
Parliament; (2) even if the whole power had not been surren-
dered the impugned Act 'i. e., the Mysore Act as amended
violated Art. 252(2) inasmuch as it indirectly amended the
Central Act by adding a new method of control by imposition
of penalties of a monetary nature; (3) the Mysore Legislature
could not amend an Act which stood repealed as a result of
the enactment of the Central .\ct; (4) the Mysore Act
as
amended \Vas repugnant to the Central Act and
was,
therefore, to the extent ofrepug1~ancy, void under Art"254)l)
of the Const1tut1on; and (5) it was colourable leg1slat1on
inasmuch as the tax v.ras imposed on the prize competitions
with the object of controlling them.
Hel.d: (I) that by the adoption of the words "control and
regulation of prize co~petition~ and all other matters ancillaty
thereto" in the resoluuon dated February 23, 1956, the Mysore
Legislature did not surrender every matter and power connected
1vith prize competitions including the po,ver to tax:
R.JJI.D. Cnamarbaugwala v. The Union of India, (1957)
S.C.R. 930, relied on.
(2) that the subject of "betting and gambling" in en try
34 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of
India and that of "ta.xes on betting and gambling" in entry
62 of List II have to be read ,cparately as separate powers,
arid, therefore, when control and regulation of prize competi-
tions was rnrrendered to Parliameni by the resolution dated·
February 23, 1956, the power to tax could not be said to have
been surrenExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.