| Headnote |
Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 – s. 13(2) – Appeal against an order of the Rent Control Tribunal to Supreme Court – Validity of s.13(2) – Held: On a conjoint reading of Art. 323B and Arts. 245 and 246 with Entry 18 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule, the Chhattisgarh State Legislature was competent to enact the Rent Control Act, to the extent that it provides for the adjudication of original disputes relating to tenancy and rent by the Rent Controller, and creates a Tribunal to decide appeals from orders of the Rent Controller – However, Entry 64 of the State List and Entry 46 of the Concurrent List expressly debar the State Legislature from legislating with respect to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – Also Art. 200 cannot validate an ultra vires enactment which the concerned Legislature lacked competence to enact – Thus, s. 13(2) providing for direct appeal to the Supreme Court from orders passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, is not ancillary or incidental to the power of the Chhattisgarh State Legislature to enact a Rent Control Act, which provides for appellate adjudication of appeals relating to tenancy and rent by a Tribunal – In enacting s. 13(2) of the Rent Control Act, the Chhattisgarh State Legislature overtly transgressed the limits of its legislative power – Thus, Chhattisgarh State Legislature, patently lacked competence to enact any law which affects the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, outside the State of Chhattisgarh – Thus, s. 13(2) is declared ultra vires the Constitution, null and void and of no effect – Constitution of India – Art. 323B and Arts. 245 and 246 with Entry 18 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule.Constitution of India – Vires of any enactment – Consideration of – Held: Is to be seen, whether looking at the legislation as a whole, it can be said to be a legislation, substantially with respect to any of the matters, with regard to which the Legislature is competent to legislate, under any specific Article of the Constitution, or any of the Entries in the relevant List in the Seventh Schedule thereto – Once it is held that it is so, the legislative power conferred by that Entry is to extend to all ancillary matters, which may fairly and reasonably be said to be comprehended in that arena – Furthermore, while the widest amplitude should be given to the language used in one entry, every attempt has to be made to harmonize its contents with those of other Entries, so that the latter may not be rendered nugatory – Interpretation of Statutes.Constitution of India – Art. 245 – Laws made by Parliament and by the Legislature of States – Power to legislate – Held: Both the Union legislature and the State Legislature derive their power to legislate from Art. 245 – Legislature of a State may only make laws for the whole or any part of the State, while Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India – There is no provision in the Constitution which saves State laws with extra-territorial operation, similar to Art. 245(2) which expressly saves Union laws with extra-territorial operation, enacted by Parliament – Thus, Chhattisgarh State Legislature, patently lacks competence to enact any law which affects the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, outside the State of Chhattisgarh.Constitution of India – Art. 138 – Enlargement of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – Term ‘special agreement’ u/ Art 138(2) – Held: Art. 138(2) provides that the Supreme Court shall have such further jurisdiction and powers with respect to any matter as the Government of India and the Government of any State may by special agreement confer, if Parliament by law provides for the exercise of such jurisdiction and powers by the Supreme Court – Special agreement, means, an independent agreement arrived at between the Government of India and the Government of a State through deliberations and negotiations and not just an approval of legislation by the President on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers – In any case, the Supreme Court may exercise further jurisdiction pursuant to a special agreement between the Government of India and the State Government on any particular issue, provided Parliament by law provides for the exercise of such jurisdiction and powers by the Supreme Court.Constitution of India – Art. 200, second proviso – Assent to Bills – Requirement of – Held: Art. 200 requires Bills passed by the Legislative Assembly of a State, or in case of a State having a Legislative Council, a bill passed by both the houses of the Legislature of the State, to be presented to the Governor for assent – Such Bills become law on receipt of assent of the Governor – Second proviso to Art. 200, prohibits the Governor from assenting to a Bill, which in the opinion of the Governor would, if it became law, so derogate from the powers of the High Court, as to endanger the position which the High Court is, by the Constitution, design to fill – Governor is obliged to reserve such bill for the consideration of the President – Presidential assent is imperative in the case of law enacted by a State Legislature, which would derogate from the powers of the High Court, as to endanger the position which that Court is, by the Constitution, designed to fill – Second proviso to Art. 200 is not attracted in the case of s. 13(2) of the Rent Control Act, since it does not derogate from any power of the High Court – Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011.Constitution of India – Arts. 226 and 227 – Power of superintendence of the High Court under – Held: Power of superintendence conferred by Art. 227 is, supervisory and not appellate – This power is to be exercised sparingly, to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within the limits of their authority – High Court interferes only when there is grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law – Interference is restricted to cases of patent error of law which go to the root of the decision; perversity; arbitrariness and/or unreasonableness; violation of principles of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction and usurpation of powers – High Court does not re-assess or re-analyze the evidence and/or materials on record – Exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court to test a decision of the Rent Control Tribunal would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case – Writ jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be converted into an alternative appellate forum, just because there is no other provision of appeal in the eye of law. |
