MAHARAJ UMEG SINGH AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1955] 2 S.C.R. 164 · Decided: 06-04-1955 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

. ·• 
' \ 
\ . 
'. \ ''' 164 
SUPREME COURT .REPORTS 
[1955] 
•, 
· 1955 
High Court already pronounced against his conviction 
after a full hearing in the presence of both the parties 
. u.!.s~~hoJ>ra on notice being issued by the High Court in that be-
state of &mbay half.· This right of his is not curtailed by anything 
contained in the earlier provisions of section 439 nor 
BhagwatiJ. 
by anything contained in either section 369 or section 
·· 430 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 
1955 
A}ril 6 
We are therefore of the opinion that the decision 
reae,hed by the High Court of Bombay in the case 
under appeal was wrong and must be reversed. We 
accordingly allow the appeal and remand the matter 
back to the High Court ofJudicatureatBombaywith . 
a direction that it shall allow the Appellant to show 
cause'against his conviction and dispose of the same 
ticcording tq law. 
· 
·· 
· · 
BY THE CouRT.-The appeal is allowed and the 
order of the High Court of Bombay is . set aside, and 
thematter is sent back to the High Court with a direc-
tion that it shall allow the appellant an opportunity 
to show cause against his conviction and dispose of 
the matter according to law. 
. 
l\IAHARAJ UMEG SINGH AND OTHERS 
v. 
THE STATE OF BOl\IBAY AND OTHERS. 
[l\ImrnERJEA, C.J., DAS, BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA 
· 
AYYAR and JAFE~ lllIAM JJ.] 
Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (J agirs Abolition) Act, 1953 
(Bombay Act XXXIX of 1954)-Whether ultra vires-Agreement of 
Merger with, and letters of guarantee to, .Rulers of States by the G<YL-
. ernment of India-Clause 5 of the letters of guarantee-Scope-Legis-
lative powers of States under Article iU6 of the Constiiution-Limita• 
· tion• thereon-Article'363 of the Constitution-Bar to Courts' juris-
diction-Fundamental rights-Articles 14, 19(1)(/), 31(2) of Con· 
stitution-Applicability in view of Article 81-A(2)( a). 
· 
· 
· 
Under Article 246(2) and (3) of the Constitution, the Legis-
lature of a State has plenary powers to legislate with respect to 
matters enumerated in Lists II and III of the Seventh Schedule to 
~he Co11stitutio11. 
The legislative competence of the State Legisl~· 
) 
2S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
165 
ture can only be circumscribed hy express prohibition contained in 
the Constimt[on itsdf and u.nless there is any provision in the Con-
stitution expressly prohibiting legislation on a subject either abso-
lutely or conditionally, there is no ·fetter or limitation on the ple-
nary powers which the State Legisl~ture enjoys to legislate on the 
ropics enumerated in Lists II and III of the Seventh Schedule to the 
Consticution. In view of Ar.icle 246 of· the Constitution, no curtail-
ment of legislative competence can be spelt out of the terms of 
Clause 5 of the Letters of Guarantee given by the Dominion Gov-
ernment to the Rukrs of "States" subsequent to the agreemnts of 
Merger, which guaranteed, inter alia, the continuance of Jagirs in 
the merged "St1tes". Indeed, Clause 5 of the Letters of Guarantee 
itself saved the legislative right of the State of Bombay subject to 
the limitation that enactments of the State shall not be discrimi-
natory in nature. 
Attac1<s on the validity of the said Act on the basis of the rights 
guaranteed by Articles 14, 19(l)(f), and 32(2) of the Constitution 
cannot be countenanced in view of Article 31-A(2)(a) of the Con-
stitution. 
Article 363 (1) of the Constitution barred the jurisdiction of 
Courts in disputes arising out of any provision of the agreements of 
merger and the Letters of Guarantee. 
Held, that Bombay Act XXXIX of 1954, the impugned Act, 
was intra vzres the State Legislature. 
Petitions Nos. 337 to 349, 365, 366, 481 and 690 of 1954 Dis-
mi,sed. 
Petition No. 364 of 1954 Adiourned. 
Vajesingji v. Secretary of State (51 I.A. 357), Secretary of 
State v. Sardar Rustam (68 I.A. 109),_ State of Savai~ella v. Union 
of India (1951 S.C.R. 474), Thakur Jagannath v. The United Pro-
vinces ([1943] F.C.R. 72), Thakur Jagannath v. The United Pro-
vinces ([1946] F.C.R. 111), referred to. 
0RIGWAL JurusmcnoN: .Petitions under Article 
12 of the Constitution for the enforcement of funda-
mental rights 
K. L. Ga11ba, (Gopal Singh, with him), for the 
Petitioners in Petitions Nos. 337 to 343 and 481 of 
\954. 
K. l. Gauha, (S. D. Sekhri, 
with him), for the 
Petitioners in Petitions Nos. 344, 446 
and 
349 of 
1954. 
K. l. Gauba. (R. Patnaik and S. D. Sekhri, with 
himL for the Petitioner in Petition No. 345 of 1954. 
22-8 SCJ/N
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.