LexVASANTLAL MAGANBHAI SANJANWALA versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND OTHERS. (AND CONNECTED APPEAL)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 341 For reasons set o~t in the principal petition, peti- tions Nos. 124 and 125 of 1957 and 118of1959 should also be dismissed with costs. BY COURT: In view of t.he majority Judgment, the petitions are allowed.. The petitioners in a.II the petitions will have their costs. Petitions allowed. VASANTLAL MAGANBHAI SANJANWALA v. THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND OTHERS •. (AND CONNECTED APPEAL) (B. P. SINHA, c .. J., J. L. KAPUR, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SuBBA RAO and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) Agricultural Tenancy, Regulation of-Enactment emptn11ering Government to fix lower rate of maximum rent by notification-If vitiated by excessive delegation-Notification, validity of-Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, r948 (Bom. LXV II of z948), s. 6(2), Section 6(1) of the Bombay Tenancy anc;I Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Born. LXVII of 1948), provided that the maximum rent payable· by a tenant shall not in the case of irrigated land exceed one-fourth and in the case of any other land exceed one third of the crop of such land or its value as determined by the prescribed manner. Section 6(2) of the Act read as follows,- " The Provincial Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, fix a lower rate of the maximum rent payable by the tenants of lands situate in any particular area or may fix such rate on any other suitable basis as it thinks fit." By a notification under that section the Government of Bombay, in supersession of all other notifications prescribed a rate of maximum rent which was very much lower than the one pre- viously fixed. The petitioners challenged the vires of the said section and the validity of the notification under Art. 226 of the Constitution, but the High Court found against them. The . question for determination in these appeals was whether s. 6(2) conferred unguided power 011 the Government and was void by reason of excessive delegation of legislative power. Universal Imports Agency v. Chief Controller of Imports~ Exports Shah ], 342 S'CPRE:llE COURT REPORTS [1961) 1960 H cld (per Sinha, C. J., Kapur, Gajendragadkar and Wanchoo, JJ.l that although the power of delegation is a con- Vosa•tlal stituent clement of the legislative power, it is well-settled that Maga•bhai a legislature cannot delegate its essential legislative function in Sonjauwala any case and before it can delegate any subsidiary or ar,cillary v. powers to a delegate of its choice, it must lay down the legisla- The State of tive policy and principle so as to afford the delegate proper Bombay 6- Othm guidance in implementing the same. A statute challenged on the ground of excessive delegatio~ must, therefore, be subjected to two tests, (1) whether it delegates essential legislative func- tion or power and :2) whether the legislature has enunciated its policy and principle for the guidance of the delegate. It is in that light that the preamble of the statute and its provisions relating to delegation should be considered. Harishankar Bag/av. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [1955] 1 S. C. R. 288 and The Edward Mi,'.ts Co. Ltd., Bemrnr v. Stale of Ajmer, [1955] l S.C.R. 735, referred to. · The preamble and the material provisions of the Act show that it seeks to improve the economic and social condition of the peasants and with that end in view fixes maximum rent payable by the tenants and provides a speedy machinery for fixation of reasonable rent. This being the legislative policy and regard being had to the specific provisions laid down by s. 12(3) of the Act for determining reasonable rent, it is impossible to hold that the power delegated to the Prov'ncial Government bys. 6(2) was vitiated by excessive delegation. The fact that no minimum was prescribed by the section could not alter the position. Held, further, that since the Act itself is within the protec- tion of Art. 31-B of the Constitution and there can be no ques- tion as to the validity of s. 6(2), the notification issued in exercise of the power conferr.,d by that section cannot be challenged as infringing Art. 31 of the Constitution. Nor was it correct to say that the power delegated bys. 6(2) could be used only once and no more. Per Subba Rao, J.-The essential legislative function is the determination of the legislative policy and its formulation as a rule of conduct. Obviously the legislature cannot abdicate its functions in favour of another. But in view of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.