RAJENDRA DIWAN versus PRADEEP KUMAR RANIBALA & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 17 S.C.R. 1089 · Decided: 10-12-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA, INDIRA BANERJEE, VINEET SARAN, M.R. SHAH, S. RAVINDRA BHAT

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1089
RAJENDRA DIWAN
v.
PRADEEP KUMAR RANIBALA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 3613 of 2016)
DECEMBER 10, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA, INDIRA BANERJEE, VINEET SARAN,
M. R. SHAH AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 – s. 13(2) – Appeal
against an order of the Rent Control Tribunal to Supreme Court –
Validity of s.13(2) – Held: On a conjoint reading of Art. 323B and
Arts. 245 and 246 with Entry 18 of the State List in the Seventh
Schedule, the Chhattisgarh State Legislature was competent to enact
the Rent Control Act, to the extent that it provides for the
adjudication of original disputes relating to tenancy and rent by
the Rent Controller, and creates a Tribunal to decide appeals from
orders of the Rent Controller – However, Entry 64 of the State List
and Entry 46 of the Concurrent List expressly debar the State
Legislature from legislating with respect to the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court – Also Art. 200 cannot validate an ultra vires
enactment which the concerned Legislature lacked competence to
enact – Thus, s. 13(2) providing for direct appeal to the Supreme
Court from orders passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, is not
ancillary or incidental to the power of the Chhattisgarh State
Legislature to enact a Rent Control Act, which provides for
appellate adjudication of appeals relating to tenancy and rent by
a Tribunal – In enacting s. 13(2) of the Rent Control Act, the
Chhattisgarh State Legislature overtly transgressed the limits of its
legislative power – Thus, Chhattisgarh State Legislature, patently
lacked competence to enact any law which affects the jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court, outside the State of Chhattisgarh – Thus, s.
13(2) is declared ultra vires the Constitution, null and void and of
no effect – Constitution of India – Art. 323B and Arts. 245 and
246 with Entry 18 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule.
Constitution of India – Vires of any enactment –
Consideration of – Held: Is to be seen, whether looking at the
legislation as a whole, it can be said to be a legislation,
   [2019] 17 S.C.R. 1089
1089
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1090
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
substantially with respect to any of the matters, with regard to which
the Legislature is competent to legislate, under any specific Article
of the Constitution, or any of the Entries in the relevant List in the
Seventh Schedule thereto – Once it is held that it is so, the
legislative power conferred by that Entry is to extend to all
ancillary matters, which may fairly and reasonably be said to be
comprehended in that arena – Furthermore, while the widest
amplitude should be given to the language used in one entry, every
attempt has to be made to harmonize its contents with those of other
Entries, so that the latter may not be rendered nugatory –
Interpretation of Statutes.
Constitution of India – Art. 245 – Laws made by Parliament
and by the Legislature of States – Power to legislate – Held: Both
the Union legislature and the State Legislature derive their power
to legislate from Art. 245 – Legislature of a State may only make
laws for the whole or any part of the State, while Parliament may
make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India –
There is no provision in the Constitution which saves State laws
with extra-territorial operation, similar to Art. 245(2) which
expressly saves Union laws with extra-territorial operation, enacted
by Parliament – Thus, Chhattisgarh State Legislature, patently lacks
competence to enact any law which affects the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court, outside the State of Chhattisgarh.
Constitution of India – Art. 138 – Enlargement of the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – Term ‘special agreement’ u/
Art 138(2) – Held: Art. 138(2) provides that the Supreme Court
shall have such further jurisdiction and powers with respect to any
matter as the Government of India and the Government of any State
may by special agreement confer, if Parliament by law provides for
the exercise of such jurisdiction and powers by the Supreme Court
– Special agreement, means, an independent agreement arrived at
between the Government of India and the Government of a State
through deliberations and negotiations and not just an approval
of legislation by the President on the aid and advice of the Council
of Ministers – In any case, the Supreme Court may exercise further
jurisdiction pursuant to a special agreement between the
Government of India and the State Government on any particular
issue,

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