LexSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus HIRENDRA PAL SINGH ETC
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 [2010) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 854 STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. v. HIRENDRA PAL SINGH ETC. (Civil Appeal Nos.10229-30 of 2010) DECEMBER 03, 2010 [J.M. PANCHAL, DEEPAK VERMA AND DR. B.S. CHAUHA~, JJ.] U.P. Legal Remembrancer Manual - Amendment of C provisions in regard to appointment of District Government Counsel - High Court vide interim order stayed the operation of amended provisions of L.R. Manual and directed the State Government to consider the applications for renewal of all District Government Counsels whose term had already D expired under the unamended provisions, i.e., which stood repealed by the amendment - On appeal, held: Whenever an Act is repealed, it must be considered as if it had never existed - Tl7e object of repeal is to obliterate the Act from the statutory books, except for certain purposes as provided E under s 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 - On repeal, the earlier iJrovisions stand obliterated/ abrogated/wiped out wholly, i.e., protanto repeal - The High Court erred in issuing dtrections to the State authorities to proceed, as an interim measure, under a non-existing IC1w - Such an order seems F to have been passed only to fill up the vacuum - Under certain circumstances, an Act which stood repealed, may revive in case the substituted Act is declared ultra viresl unconstitutional by the court on the ground of legislative competence etc., however, the same shall not be the position G in case of subordinate legislation - The L. R. Manual consists of executive instructions, which can be replaced any time by another set of executive instructions - Therefore, question of revival of the repealed clauses of L.R. Manual in case the substituted clauses are struck down by the court, does not H 854 STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. v. HIRENDRA PAL SINGH 855 ETC. arise :... In view of this, the interim order passed by High Court A would amount to substituting the legal policy by the judicial order, and is thus not sustainable - General Clauses Act, 1897 - s.6. Interpretation of Statutes - Repeal and suspension· of 8 statutory provisions - Distinction between - Discussed. The provisions of the U.P. Legal Remembrancer Manual (L.R. Manual) were amended w.e.f 13th August, 2008. The amendment provided basically two changes (1) dispensation of consultation with the District Judge by C the District Magistrate before sending any proposal/ recommendation to the State Government for appointment of District Government Counsel; and (2) reduction in the age of service from 62 to 60 years. The amended provisions of the LR. Manual were challenged D in writ petitions filed before the High Court. The High Court passed interim order staying the operation of amended provisions of LR. Manual and directed the State Government to consider the applications for renewal of all District Government E Counsels whose term had already expired under the unamended provisions, i.e., which stood repealed by the amendment dated 13.8.2008, and to allow them to serve till they attain the age upto 62 years. In the instant appeals, the appellant contended that fixing the age even in government services falls within th.e F ' exclusive competence of the State authorities, and the court should not interfere in such matters being a policy decision, even at the final stage; and that an interim order G should not be passed by the court, staying the operation of law as such unless the court is o.f the view that the law was patently unconstitutional. It was contended by the appellant that the High Court under no circumstance could direct the State authorities to consider the cases H 856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A for renewal/extension under the provisions of the unamended LR. i.e. non-existing provisions; and that such interim order tantamounts to legislation by judicial orders. It was further contended by the appellant that a large number of similar orders were passed by the High 8 Court and in all of them except this case, the operation of such interim orders has been stayed by this court. Per contra, the respondents contended that In making the proposal for appointment of the Distt. Government Counsel by · the Distt. Magistrate, C dispensation of consultation with the District Judge itself is c' serious matter and High Court rightly stayed the op"lration of the amended provisions of the L.R. Manual. They contended that since the High Court stayed t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.