Dismissed

International Sindhi Panchayat Federation and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Aug 2019PIL/52/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the repeal of the Displaced Persons Act, 1954, does not extinguish pending claims or proceedings due to the saving provision in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. Proceedings continue as per the repealed Act.

What did the court decide?

Petition and Civil Application disposed of; authorities directed to process pending proceedings in terms of the Act of 1954.

International Sindhi Panchayat Federation and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

(3)-PIL-52-06.doc .

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.52 OF 2006

¶4

International Sindhi Panchayats Federation and others ..Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶7

..Respondents

¶8

WITH

¶9

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.51 OF 2006 IN

¶10

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.52 OF 2006

¶11

Mr. Raju Kakumal Rizwani ..Applicant Versus International Sindhi Panchayats Federation and others ..Petitioners AND The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents

¶12

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.28 2009 IN

¶13

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.52 OF 2006

¶14

International Sindhi Panchayats Federation and others ..Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents AND Mr. Ravi Chamanlal Saigal ..Applicant

¶15

Mr. N. R. Bubna, Advocate for the Applicant in CAI No.51 of 2006. Ms. Meenal Chandnani, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. K. S. Thorat, AGP for Respondent No.1.

¶16

BGP. 1 o f 3

¶17

(3)-PIL-52-06.doc .

¶18

CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. & NITIN JAMDAR, J.

¶19

DATE : 9^th AUGUST, 2019

¶20

P.C.

¶21

1] Though Civil Application No.28 of 2009 seeking impleadment is listed for hearing today, after hearing learned counsel for the Petitioners and the Applicant, we propose to dispose of the Petition itself.

¶22

2] The Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 ( for short 'the Act of 1954') was passed to decide claims of those who had migrated from the territories now forming part of Pakistan and Bangladesh to territories now comprising India and had left behind properties in territories now forming part of Pakistan and Bangladesh. Authorities were constituted under the said Act to adjudicate the claims. Appellate and Revisional authorities were constituted.

¶23

3] The Petition was filed espousing a cause of those whose Claims or Appeals or Revisions were pending under the Act of 1954 when the Displaced Persons Claims and Other Laws Repeal Act, 2005 (for short 'the Repeal Act') was promulgated repealing the Act of 1954; and the authorities under the 1954 Act took a stand that since the Act was repealed nothing remained to be decided under the Act of

¶24

BGP. 2 o f 3

¶25

(3)-PIL-52-06.doc .

¶26

¶27

4] It is settled law that in view of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, repeal of an Act saves rights which have accrued under the Repealed Act and therefore, we declare that notwithstanding the repeal of the Act of 1954, proceedings, be there original proceedings, be there appellate proceedings or be there revisional proceedings continue because they survive and said proceedings would have to be decided as per the repealed Act.

¶28

5] Needless to state right of appeal being a statutory right, pertaining to original applications which have to be decided under the repealed Act, once they are decided, the appellate as well as revisional remedy under the repealed Act would be maintainable.

¶29

6] Declaring as above, the Public Interest Litigation and the Civil Application seeking impleadment are disposed of directing the authorities under the Act of 1954 to process pending proceedings in terms of the Act of 1954.

¶30

NITIN JAMDAR, J

¶31

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶32

BGP. 3 o f 3

International Sindhi Panchayat Federation and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

International Sindhi Panchayat Federation and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hindu Janjagruti Samiti Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Association for Aiding Justice through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Ram Keswani Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary of Ministry of Education and Ors.

Mr. Pushkaraj Shekhar Indurkar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shankarlal Shriram Lohiya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Hansraj Sethi Vs Shankar J Mishra and Ors.

Vaibhav Deshpande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr Mahesh Vijay Bedekar Vs the State Election Commission and Ors.

Sapan Shrivastava Vs Hdfc Asset Management Company Ltd. @Hdfc Amc and Ors.

Meso Private Limited Vs Liberty Shoed Ltd. and Anr.

Hindu Janjagruti Samiti Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Association for Aiding Justice through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Ram Keswani Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary of Ministry of Education and Ors.

Kakade Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Ashok Yadav Vs Vistra Itcl (India) Ltd. Formerly Known as Il and Fs Trust Company Limited and 3 Ors.

Sanjay Kakade Vs Vistra Itcl (India) Ltd.(Formerly Known as Il and Fs Trust Company Ltd.) and 3 Ors.

Sanjay Kakade Vs Vistra Itcl (India) Ltd.(Formerly Known as Il and Fs Trust Company Ltd.) and 3 Ors.