LexVASU DEV SINGH AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
V ASU DEV SINGH AND ORS. A v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. NOVEMBER 7, 2006 [S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] B East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949-Section 3-Notification under, by Administrator-Directing that provisions of Act not applicable to buildings and rented land whose monthly rental exceeded Rs. 1500-Validity C of-Held: Delegation of essential legislative function is impermissible- Administrator has no jurisdiction to issue a Notification which would have a permanent impact-It cannot change the basic features of the law or act contrary to the legislative policy-It could exercise power under section 3 only in terms of legislative policy-Administrator cannot repeal provisions of the main Act-Change of legislative policy with the aid of the National f> Housing Policy was not within the domain of the Administrator-It was the sole prerogative of the legislature-Thus, Notification violative of legislative policy-East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974-Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/es 245 and 246. Administrative law: Conditional legislation and delegated legislation-Distinction · between-Explained Delegated legislation-Judicial review, scope of-Held: Is permissible E though the scope is limited. F Legislation: Legislative policy-Ascertainment of-Held: Can be gathered fi·om the preamble of a statute, statement of object and reasons and the provisions therein. Prior to coming into force of Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966, Union G Territory of Chandigarh was part of State of Punjab. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was enacted to restrict the increase of rent of certain premises situated within the limits of urban areas and eviction of tenants therefrom. Provisions of 1949 Act were extended to Union Territory of 535 H 536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R. I A Chandigarh by Notification. Appellants-tenants in the premises within Union Territory of Chandigarh were protected in terms of 1949 Act. High Court struck down the Notification since Chandigarh was not declared an urban area. In 1972, Chandigarh was declared an urban area. Thereafter, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974 was enacted in terms whereof provisions of 1949 Act were extended to Union Territory of B Chandigarh. The Administrator of Chandigarh in exercise of his power conferred upon him under section 3 of 1949 Act, issued Notification dated 07.11.2002 directing that the provisions of the Act would not apply to the buildings and rented land whose monthly rental exceeded Rs. 1500/-. Appellant filed writ petition challenging the vires of Section 3 of 1949 as also vali~ity C of the Notification. Administrator filed additional affidavit before the High Court assigning reasons for issuing the said notification. Reference was made to the National Housing Policy adopted by the Central Government, Model Rent Law suggested by Government of India as also various correspondences entered into by and between Central Government and the Union Territory D culminating in issuance of the said Notification. High Court dismissed the writ petitions holding that the Notification was not ultra vires the provisions of the 1949 Act. Hence the present appeals. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The order of High Court that the Notification dated 07.11.2002 E issued by Administrator of Chandigarh in exercise of his power conferred upon him under section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 directing that the provisions of the Act would not apply to the buildings and rented land whose monthly rental exceeded Rs.1500/-, was not ultravires the provisions of the 1949 Act, cannot be sustained. (546-E-FJ F 2.1. The distinction between conditional legislation and delegated legislation is clear and unambiguous. In a conditional legislation the delegatee has to apply the law to an area or to determine the time and manner of carrying it into effect or at such time, as it decides or to understand the rule of legislation, it would be a conditional legislation. The legislature in such a G case makes the law, which is complete in all respects but the same is not brought into operation immediately. The enforcement of the law would depend upon the fulfilment of a condition and what is delegated to the executive is the authority to determine by exercising its own judgment as to whether such conditions hav
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.