STATE OF ORISSA versus BHUPENDRA KUMAR BOSE

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 380 · Decided: 22-12-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

IHI 
o..-...n. 
380 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. 
STATE OF ORISSA 
v. 
BHUPENDRA KUMAR BOSE 
(P. B. GAJENDRAOADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, K. N. 
WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA andN. 
RAJAOOPALA AYYANOAR, JJ.) 
Municipal Ekction8-Elecloral rol/a improperly prepared 
-lligh Court declaring ekctioM in1ialid-Validating Ordinance 
-Conatitulionality of-Expiry of Ordinanc•-Whether invalidit11 
revivea-0ri'8a .Municipal Act, 1950 (Orissa 33 of 1950)-
0.U11a Crdinance I of 1959, ••· 3, 4 and 5-CoMtitution of 
India, Arla. 14, 226 and 254 
Elections were held f, 
the Cuttack Municipality and 27 
persons were declared eh "ted as Councillors. One B, who 
was defeated at the elections, filed a wri-t p•tition before the 
High Court challengin~ the elections. The High Court held 
that the electoral rolls had not been prepared in accordance 
with the provisiom of the Orissa Municipaliri" ·Act, 1950, as 
the age qualification had been published too late thereby 
curtailing the period of claims and obj•ctions 10 the prelimi-
nary roll to 2 days from 21 days as prescribed; Consequently 
the High Courl set aside the c!cclions. 
The Stale took the 
view that the judgment affected not merely the 
Cuttack 
Municipality but other municipaliries also. 
Accordingly, the 
Governor promulgated an Ordinance validating the elections 
to the Cutrack Municipaliry and valid:iting the electoral rolls 
prepared in respect of other municipalities. Thereupon, B 
filed a writ petition before the High Court contending that 
the Ordinance was unconstitulional. The High Court found 
that the Ordinance e<ntravened Art. 14 of the Constitution, 
that it did not succe,.fully cure the invalidiry and that it 
of!'ended Art. 254( 1) of the Constituti<>n as it was inconsistent 
with many Central Acts falling in the concurrent list and was 
unconstitutional. The State and the Councillors appealed 
and challengrd the findings of the High Court. 
B raised two 
further contentions that the app.al :1ad become infructuous as 
the Ordinance had expired and that the Ordinance wu 
invalid as it purported to invalidate the judgm,.1t of the High 
Court. 
Jletd, that the Ordinance was valid and that it success-
fully cured the invalidity of the electoral roll and of the elec-
tions to the Cuttack Municipality. 
The Ordinance did not offend Art. 14 of the Constitu-
tion. Iu object was not only to save the elections to the 
-I 
2 s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
381 
Cuttuck Municipality but alsc> to other municipalities 'WhC)Se 
validity might be challenged on similar grounds. 
1.t did not 
single out .B for any discriminatc>ry treatment. 
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri JuaticeS.R. Tendollcar, 
[1959] S. C.R. 279, referred tc>. 
State oJVermont v. Albert Shedroi,(1904)68 L. Ed. 179, 
distinguished, 
The Ordinance effectively removal the defects. in the 
electoral rolls found by the High Court by its first judgment. 
It was not necessary for it to further state that the result of 
elections was not materially affected. 
Sectfon 5( I) of the Ordinance which saved the actfons 
taken and powers exercised by the. COuncilfors, the Chairman 
and the Vice-Chairman was not repugnant to any existing law 
and did not contravene Art. 254(2) 0£ the Constitution • 
. Section 5(1) was confined to action taken under the Orissa 
Municipalities Act and did not extend tc> violations of other 
laws made by the Central Legislature under the concurrent 
list. 
The first judgment of the High Court under Art. 226 of 
the Constitution cc>uld not be equated with Art. 226 itself. 
As such the Governor did not transgress any constitutional 
limitation in nullifying its effect by the validating Ordinance. 
The invalidity of the electoral rolls and the electic>ns to 
the Cuttack Municipality did not revive on the expiry of the 
Ordinance. The general rule with 
regard to temporary 
statutes is that, in the absence. of a special provision to the 
contrary, proceedings being taken under it against a person 
will ipso facto terminate as soon as the statute expires. But, 
if the right created by the Statute is of an enduring character 
and has vested in the person, that right cannot be taken away 
simply because the statute has. expired. The rights created by 
the Ordinance lasted even after the Ordinance lapsed as its 
object was to remove the invalidity permanently, 
Kiiahnan v. 81.af,e of .Madras (1951] S.C.R. 621, Wiolca 
v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [19-l7] A.G. 362, Btea--
v. Oliver (1841) 151 E. R. !024 a

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