THE STATE OF ASSAM versus A. N. KIDWAL, COMMISSIONER OF HILLS DIVISION AND APPEALS, SHILLONG

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 295 · Decided: 31-01-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
295 
There was some question raised before us as to 
whether the private complainants could be allowed 
to 
participate in these 
proceedings at 
the 
various 
stages. Nothing that we 
have said is 
intended to 
indicate that the 
private complainant has 
a locus 
standi. 
It is unfortunate that this prosecution which is 
still pending at its very early stages has got to be 
proceeded with against all the rest of the accused, 
after the lapse of nearly three years from the date 
of the murder. It is to be hoped that the proceedings 
which must follow will be speeded up. 
Appeals allowed. 
THE ST ATE OF ASSAM 
v. 
A. N. KIDW Al, COMMISSIONER OF HILLS 
DIVISION AND APPEALS, SHILLONG. 
(with connected appeals) 
[ s. R. DAS c. J., BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR, 
B. P. S1NHA and S. K. DAs JJ.] 
Revenue Tribunal, 11·ansfe1· of powers of-Enactment authoris-
ing 
Provincial 
Government 
to 
appoint 
Appellate 
Authority-
Legality-lf an excessive 
delegation of 
legislative 
power-Notifi-
cation 
by 
Government 
making 
such 
appointment-Validity-
Repugnancy-Assam Revenue T1-ibunal 
(Transfer of Powers) Act, 
1948 (Assam IV of 1948), s. 3(3)-Government of India Act, !93S 
(25 & 26 Geo. 5. Ch. 42), s. 296-Eastern Bengal and Assam fa:cise 
Act (Eastern Bengal and Assam 1 of 1910), s~ 9 (2). 
These appeals by the State of Assam and some other parties 
from a number of judgments of the High Court of Assam, passed 
under Art. 226 of the Constitution, quashing certain orders of 
the Appellate Authority appointed by the Governor of Assam by 
a Notification 
under 
s. 3(3) of the 
Assam Revenue Tribunal 
(Transfer of Powers) 
Act, 1948, dated July 5, 
1955, raised the 
common question of the vires of that section and the validity of 
the 
Notification by 
which the Commissioner of Hills Division. 
and Appeals was appointed the Appellate Authority. In 1955 
rival claimants applied for the grant of licenses and settlement of 
country spirit shops for -the year 1956-57 and parties dissatisfied 
with the orders of the Deputy Commissioner :µid 
those of the 
5-100 S. C. Indi~/59 
. 
. 1957 
Thi St611 of Biluir 
v. 
Ram Nares/! 
Pandey 
]agannatl.hatl.as J. 
1957 
January, SI. 
1957 
The St alt of Assam 
v. 
A. N. Kidwai 
2% 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19571 
Excise 
Commissioner 
in 
appeals 
therefrom, 
appealed 
to 
the 
Appellate 
Authority 
whose orders 
were, as stated, 
quashed by 
the 
High Court. 
Under 
the 
Eastern Bengal and Assam Excise 
Act, 1910, 
the 
Board which was the 
final appellate 
authority 
meant 
the 
Provincial 
Government 
and 
ministers, 
who 
were 
necessarily 
members 
of the Legislature, 
functioned as the 
Board. 
Section 296 of the Government of India Act, 1935, 
by sub-s. (I) 
put a ban on the members of the Legislature from functioning as 
the Board and by sub-s. (2) empowered the Governor to constitute 
a tribunal to exercise the same jurisdiction until 
the Legislature 
made other provisions in that behalf. 
The Government of Assam 
constituted a single member tribunal, 
called at 
first the 
Board 
and later on the Assam Revenue Tribunal, which functioned till 
the passing of the Assam l{evenue 
Tribunal 
Act, 1946, empo\\·~:-­
ing the Provincial Governn1ent to constitute 
the 
Assam Revenue 
Tribunal 
consisting of three members. 
In 
1948 the 
High Cot!rt 
of Assam was established 
and shortly 
thereafter 
was passed 
tne 
Assam H.evenue Tribunal (Transfer of Power~) Act, 1948. abolish-
ing the Assam Revenue Tribunal 
and conferring 
its 
jurisdiction 
on the High Court and the authority to be 
appointed by 
the 
Provincial 
Government under s. 3(3) of the Act. The High Court 
in disposing of the \Vrit petitions 
cook the view that s. 296(2) ot 
the Government of India Act placed a 1nandate on the 
Provin;:i.:1! 
Legislature to constitute the tribunal which it failed to do and 
that s. 3(3) of the Assam Revenue 
Tribunal (Transfer of Powers) 
Act, I 948, constituteJ an excessive 
delegation 
of the 
legislative 
power conferred 
on the Legislature 
by the Government of India 
Act, 1935, 
and 
that 
the sai<l 
Notification was repugnant to s. 9 
<>f the Eastern Bengal and Assam 
Excise 
Act, 1910, 
and, there-
fore, s. 3(3) of the impugned Act and the Notification were void 
and the Appel_late 
Authority not having been lawfully 
constituted 
its orders were nullities~ 
Hdd, that s. 3(3) of the Assam Revenue 
Tribunal 
(Transfer 
of Powers) 
Act, 1948, and the Notification 

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