LexVIJAY versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• .J VIJAY v. ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. JULY 26, 2006 [S.B. SINHA AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.] Panchayats : Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 Section /4(/)(J-2)-Member of Panchayat subsequently elected as councillor-Held: He is disqualified from holding the post of member by virtue of amendment to Section 14(/)(J-2) A B c Section /4(I)(J-2)-Amended provision-Whether prospective or retrospective in effect-Held: Plain reading of the amended provision clearly D shows that it was intended by legislature to have retrospective effect-Thus, bar created to hold the post of member of Panchayat would bring within its purview not only those persons who would be members of Panchayat in future but also those who were sitting members. Interpretation of Statutes : Statute-Prospective or retrospective effect-General rule is that statute is construed to have prospective effect-However, if from perusal of statute, intendment of legislature is clear, the Court will give effect thereto-For the said purpose, the general scope of the statute is relevant. Appellant had been elected member of Panchayat on 27.12.2000. E F Thereafter he was elected as Councillor of Zila Parishad. The Collector held him disqualified to hold the post of member of Panchayat in view of amendment of S.14(l}(J-2) of Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. An appeal before Commissioner and thereafter Writ Petition before High G Court were dismissed. Hence the present appeal. Appellant contended that Section 14(l)(J-2) of the Act is prospective in nature a_nd thus, the concerned respondents as also the High Court acted illegally and without jurisdiction in arriving at a finding that the appellant 81 H. 82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A stood disqualified. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: I.I. Ordinarily a statute is construed to have prospective effect, but the same rule does not apply to a disqualifying provision. The 13 inhibition against retrospective construction is not a rigid rule. It does not apply to a curative or a clarificatory statute. If from a perusal of the statute intendment of the legislature is clear, the Court will give effect thereto. For the said purpose, the general scope of the statute is relevant. Every law that takes away a right vested under the existing law is C retrospective in nature. 184-H; 85-A-BI D 1.2. The general rule that a statute shall be construed to be prospective has two exceptions: it should be expressly so stated in the enactment or inference in relation thereto becomes evident by necessary implication. 184-EI 2.1. The amendment of S.14(1)(J-2) of Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 came into force with effect from 8.8.2003. It is a disqualifying provision. A plain reading of the amended provision clearly shows that it was intended by legislature to have retrospective effect. The legislative policy emanating from the aforesaid provision, is absolutely clear and E unambiguous. By introducing the said provision, the legislature, intended that for the purpose of bringing grassroot democracy, a person should not be permitted to hold two posts created in terms of Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act. 184-C-D-G-HI 2.2. In the instant case it is stated expressly that the amendment F would apply also to a case where the elected candidate had been elected as a member of Panchayat earlier thereto. It not only incorporates within its purview all persons who would be members of the Panchayat in futurv. but also those who were sitting members. In other words, the bar created to hold the post of member of Panchayat would bring within its purview G also those who were continuing to hold the post. 184-FI <Jvvt. of India & Ors. v. Indian Tobacco Association, 120051 7 SCC 396, relied on. Boucher Pierre Andre v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi H & Anr, 1197511sec192, referred to. • .. ... - VIJAYv. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [SINHA, J.) 83 3. The appellant was elected in terms of the provisions of a statute. A The right to be elected was created by a statute and, thus, can be taken away by a statute. It is now well-settled that when a literal reading of the provision giving retrospective effect does not produce absurdity or anomaly, the same would not be construed to be only prospective. The negation is not a rigid rule and varies with the intention and purport of B the legislature, but to apply it in such a case is a doctrine of f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.