Dismissed

Lakshmanbhai Ukabhai Parmar v. Karmsibhai Lalabhai Parmar

Gujarat HC4 Feb 2014SCA/101/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Civil Application challenging the constitutionality of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 on grounds of lack of appeal and executive adjudication. Court held the Act is not ultra vires the Constitution.

What did the court decide?

Special Civil Application dismissed; provisions of the Act held constitutional.

What the court decided

Lakshmanbhai Ukabhai Parmar Vs Karmsibhai Lalabhai Parmar — Landlord and Tenant | Gujarat HC (2014)

¶1

C/SCA/101/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶2

SCA1012014Cj1.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 101 of 2014

¶4

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶5

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE	Sd/-
MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE	Sd/-
J.B.PARDIWALA

¶6

========================================== ===============

¶7

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed Yes
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of
India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? No

¶8

==========================================

¶9

===============

¶10

LAKSHMANBHAI UKABHAI PARMAR & ANR

¶11

Versus

¶12

KARMSIBHAI LALABHAI PARMAR & ORS.

¶13

==========================================

¶14

===============

¶15

Appearance:

¶16

MRS.DHARITA P MALKAN, ADVOCATE with MS.KHUSHBOO V MALKAN, ADVOCATE for the Petitioners.

¶17

========================================== ===============

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA

¶19

and

¶20

Page 1 of 20

¶21

C/SCA/101/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶22

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

¶23

Date : 04/02/2014

¶24

CAV JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA)

¶25

By this Special Civil Application, the writ-petitioners have not only prayed for a writ of mandamus declaring that the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India but have also prayed for a direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 30^th July 2012 passed by the Mamlatdar, Lathi, in Mamlatdar Court Case No.11 of 2012 and also the order dated 25^th February 2013 passed by the Deputy Collector, Lathi, in Revision Case No.5 of 2012.

¶26

This Court, at the very outset, made it clear to the learned advocate for the petitioners that this Court will restrict its scrutiny only to the question whether, The Mamlatdar’s Court Act, 1906 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) is ultra vires the Constitution of India. However, for challenging the other orders impugned in this application, the petitioners are required to move the appropriate learned Single Judge vested with the jurisdiction to decide such question.

¶27

2.1 Accordingly, we have restricted our scrutiny only to the question whether the Act is in any way ultra vires the Constitution of India.

¶28

Page 2 of 20

¶29

C/SCA/101/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶30

Mr Malkan, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended before us that the authority to decide the question of easement right over an immovable property should not be conferred upon the Mamlatdar’s Court as by the Act itself, no right of appeal against such decision has been given in favour of the litigant. According to Mr Malkan, the complicated question of right of easement over the immovable property should be decided by the Civil Court and there being no provision of judicial review of such decision except a feeble remedy by way of revision before the Collector, who is also an executive officer, the vesting of such power in the executives is violative of the principles of natural justice and, at the same time, arbitrary.

¶31

Therefore, the only question that arises for determination in this Special Civil Application is whether the provision of the Act is violative of any of the provisions of the Constitution of India.

¶32

It may not be out of place to mention here that the Act was initially applicable in the erstwhile State of Bombay when the said Act was enacted as Bombay Act No.II of 1906. On formation of the State of Gujarat, the same was adopted and modified by the Gujarat Adaption of Laws (State of Concurrence Subject) Order 1960 and was further amended by the Gujarat Legislative Assembly, vide Gujarat Act No.15 of 1964. According to the provisions of the Act, the word

¶33

Page 3 of 20

¶34

C/SCA/101/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶35

“Mamlatdar” should include any Revenue Officer exercising for the time being the power of a Mamlatdar, or of a Mahalkari and any other person who may be specially authorized by the State Government to exercise the powers of a Mamlatdar under the Act.

¶36

Section 5 of the Act describes the powers of the Mamlatdar’s Court, which is quoted below:-

¶37

“ 5. Powers of Mamlatdars Courts . – (1) Every Mamlatdar shall preside over a Court, which shall be called a Mamlatdar’s Court, and which shall, subject to the provisions of Sections 6 and 26, have power, within such territorial limits as may from time to time be fixed by the State Government, -

¶38

(a) to remove or cause to be removed any impediment, erected otherwise than under due authority of law, to the natural flow in a defined channel or otherwise of any surface water naturally rising in or falling on any land used for agriculture, grazing, trees or crops, on to any adjacent land, where such impediment causes or is likely to cause damage to the land used for such purpose or to any such grazing trees or crops thereon;

¶39

(b) to give immediate possession of any lands or premises used for agriculture of grazing, or trees, or crops, or fisheries, or to restore the use of water from any well, tank, canal or water-course, whether natural or artificial used for agricultural purposes to any person who has been dispossessed or deprived thereof otherwise than by due course of law, or who has become entitled to the possession or restoration thereof by reason of the determination of any tenancy or other right of any other

¶40

Page 4 of 20

¶41

C/SCA/101/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶42

person, not being a person who has been a former owner or part-owner, within a period of twelve years before the institution of the suit of the property or use claimed, or who is the legal representative of such former owner or part-owner:

¶43

Provided that, if in any case the Mamlatdar considers it inequitable or unduly harsh to remove or course to be removed any such impediment or, to give possession of any such property or to restore any such use to a person who has become entitled thereto merely by reason of the determination of any such tenancy or other right, or if it appears to him that such case can be more suitably dealt with by a Civil Court, he may in his discretion refuse to exercise the power aforesaid, but shall record in writing his reasons for such refusal.

¶44

(2) Power to issue injunction. – The said Court shall also, subject to the same provisions, have power within the said limits, where any impediment referred to in sub-section (1) is erected, or an attempt has been made to erect it, or, when any person is otherwise than by due course of law disturbed or obstructed, or when an attempt has been made so to disturb or obstruct any person, in the possession of any lands or premises used for agriculture or grazing or trees, or crops, or fisheries, or in the use of water from any well, tank, canal or water-course, whether natural or artificial, used for agricultural purposes, or in the use of roads or customary ways thereto to issue an injunction to the person erecting or who has attempted to erect such impediment, or causing, or who has attempted to cause, such disturbance or obstruction, requiring him to refrain from erecting or attempting to erect any such impediment or, from causing or attempting to cause any further such disturbance or obstruction.

¶45

Page 5 of 20

¶46

C/SCA/101/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶47

(3) Suit to be filed within six months . – No suit shall be entertained by a Mamlatdar’s Court unless it is brought within six months from the date on which the cause of action arose. (4) Cause of action. - The cause of action shall be deemed to have arisen on the date on which the impediment to the natural flow of surface water or the dispossession, deprivation or determination, of tenancy or other right occurred, or on which the impediment, disturbance or obstruction, or the attempted impediment or disturbance or obstruction, first commenced.

¶48

Explanation. - The exercise by a joint owner of any right which he has over the joint property is not a dispossession, or disturbance of possession of the other joint owner or owners within the meaning of this section.”

¶49

Sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Act describes the power of limitation for entertaining such suit and sub-section (4) of section 5 of the Act says that the cause of action shall be deemed to have arisen on the date on which the impediment to the natural flow of surface water or the dispossession, deprivation or determination, of tenancy or other right occurred, or on which the impediment, disturbance or obstruction, or the attempted impediment or disturbance or obstruction, first commenced. The explanation to the said section clarifies that the exercise by a joint owner of any right which he has over the joint property is not a dispossession, or disturbance of possession of the other joint owner or owners within the meaning of that section.

¶50

Page 6 of 20

¶51

C/SCA/101/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶52

The following provisions of the Act also are relevant for the purpose of deciding the question involved and are quoted below:

¶53

“ 9. Examination of plaintiff on oath . – Where the plaint does not contain the particulars specified in Section 7 or is unnecessarily prolix, the Mamlatdar shall forthwith examine the plaintiff upon oath and ascertain from him such of the particulars specified in Section 7 as are not clearly and correctly stated in the plaint and shall reduce the examination to writing in the form of an endorsement on or annexure to the plaint which shall thereupon be deemed to be part of the plaint. Where the plaintiff requires time to obtain any of the particulars specified in Section 7, the Mamlatdar shall grant him such time as may under all the circumstances appear reasonable.

¶54

10. Plaint to be subscribed and verified . – When the plaint is presented and has, if necessary, been treated in the manner specified in Section 9, the Mamlatdar shall require the plaintiff to subscribe and verify the plaint in his presence, in open Court in the manner following, or to the like effect :

¶55

“I, A.B., the plaintiff, do declare that what is stated in this plaint is true to the best of my information and belief.”

¶56

12. Rejection of plaint . – The Mamlatdar shall reject the plaint-

¶57

(a) where the plaintiff declines to make a statement on oath under Section 9; or

¶58

(b) where the plaintiff is willing to make or has made a statement on oath under Section 9, but fails to furnish the particulars specified in Section 7 within the time fixed under Section 9 or altogether; or

¶59

(c) where it appears upon the face of the plaint,

¶60

Page 7 of 20

¶61

C/SCA/101/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶62

(i) that the property or use claimed is not one of the kind specified in Section 5; or

¶63

(ii) that the cause of action arose more than six months before the plaint was presented; or

¶64

(d) where the plaintiff declines to subscribe or verify the plaint as required by Sections 10 and 11.

¶65

13. Return of Plaint . – Where it appears to the Mamlatdar that the subject of the plaint is not within his jurisdiction, he shall, return the plaint to be presented in the proper Court.

¶66

14. Procedure where plaint admissible . – (1) Where a plaint is admissible, the Mamlatdar shall receive and file it. He shall then fix a convenient day and place for the trial of the case, and shall issue, at the expense of the plaintiff, notice in the form of Schedule A to the defendant. He shall then require the plaintiff to appear with his documents, if any, and witnesses, if any, on the day and at the place fixed.

¶67

(2) The date to be fixed for the trial of the case shall not be earlier than ten days, nor later than fifteen days, from the day on which the notice is issued, except for sufficient reason to be recorded in writing by the Mamlatdar with his own hand.

¶68

(3) The place to be fixed for the trial of the case may be in the Mamlatdar’s office or at or near the scene of dispute, or at any other spot that the Mamlatdar considers convenient to the parties.

¶69

15. Attendance of witnesses . – (1) Where either party requires any witness to be summoned to appear on the day and at the place fixed the Mamlatdar shall issue a summons for that purpose.

¶70

Page 8 of 20

¶71

C/SCA/101/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶72

(2) The Mamlatdar may issue, after recording his reasons in writing, a warrant for the arrest of any such witness if at such time he fails to appear and the summons is proved to have been duly served in time to admit of his appearing in accordance therewith and no reasonable excuse is offered for such failure.

¶73

(3) The payment of the cost incurred in thus procuring the attendance of witnesses shall be regulated in accordance with the rules that may from time to time be in force in regard to the attendance of witnesses in subordinate Civil Courts.

¶74

19. Points to be decided by Mamlatdar at hearing . – (1) On the day fixed, or on any day to which the proceedings may have been adjourned, the Mamlatdar shall, subject to the provisions of Section 16, proceed to hear all the evidence that is then and there before him and to try the following issues, namely:

¶75

(aa) If the plaintiff avers that the natural flow of surface water from his land has been impeded by any erection raised by the defendant causing damage or likelihood of damage to the plaintiff’s land or to any grazing, trees or crops thereon –

¶76

(1) whether surface water flowed, in a defined channel or otherwise naturally from plaintiff’s land on to defendant’s land;

¶77

(2) whether the defendant erected any impediment to such flow, otherwise than under due authority of law;

¶78

(3) whether such erection impeded such natural flow of water within six months before the suit was filed;

¶79

(4) whether such impediment has caused or is likely to cause damage to plaintiff’s land or to any grazing trees or crops thereon;

¶80

(a) If the plaintiff aver that he has been unlawfully disposed of any property or deprived of any use –

¶81

Page 9 of 20

¶82

C/SCA/101/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶83

(1) whether the plaintiff or any person on his behalf or through whom he claims was in possession or enjoyment of the property or use claimed up to any time within six months before the suit was filed;

¶84

(2) whether the defendant is in possession at the time of the suit and, if so, whether he obtained possession otherwise than by due course of law;

¶85

(b) if the plaintiff avers that he is entitled to possession of any property or restoration of any use by reason of the determination of any tenure or other right of the defendant in respect thereof –

¶86

(1) whether the defendant is in possession of the property or in the enjoyment of the use by a right derived from the plaintiff or from any person through whom he claims;

¶87

(2) whether such right was determined at any time within six months before the suit was filed;

¶88

(3) whether the defendant is other than a person who has been a former owner or partowner within a period of twelve years before the institution of the suit of the property or use claimed, and other than the legal representative of such former owner or partowner.

¶89

(c) If the plaintiff avers that he is still in possession of the property or in the enjoyment of the use, but that the defendant disturbs or obstructs, or has attempted to disturb or obstruct him in his possession or use –

¶90

(1) whether the plaintiff or any person in his

¶91

Page 10 of 20

¶92

C/SCA/101/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶93

behalf is actually in possession or enjoyment of the property or use claimed;

¶94

(2) whether the defendant is disturbing or, obstructing, or has attempted to disturb or obstruct, him in such possession or enjoyment;

¶95

(3) whether such disturbance or obstruction, or such attempted disturbance of obstruction, first commenced within six months before the suit was filed.

¶96

(2) Power of Mamlatdar to examine other witnesses

¶97

and inspect property in dispute . – The Mamlatdar may, after due notice to, and in the presence of the parties, summon and examine as a witness any person who has not been summoned or produced, and may call for and cause to be proved any document which has not been applied for or produced, by either of the parties, where he considers it expedient in the interest of justice so to do, and may, if he thinks fit, make a personal inspection of the property in dispute in the presence of, or after due notice to, the parties;

¶98

He shall without unnecessary delay record a memorandum after hearing the parties on the spot if present, of any relevant facts observed at such inspection. The memorandum shall form part of the record of the case.

¶99

(3) Record of Proceedings by Mamlatdar. – The Mamlatdar shall with his own hand make or sign a memorandum of the substance of the evidence of each witness as the examination of the witness proceeds, and briefly record his reasons for his finding.

¶100

(4) Orders to be passed by Mamlatdar upon decisions

¶101

Page 11 of 20

¶102

C/SCA/101/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶103

in favour of plaintiff and defendant . – Where the Mamlatdar’s finding upon the issues is in favour of the plaintiff, he shall make such order, not being in excess of the powers vested in him by Section 5, as the circumstances of the case appear to him to require; and where his finding is in favour of the defendant, he shall dismiss the suit. In either case the costs of the suit, including the cost of execution, shall follow the decision.

¶104

23. Bar of appeal - (1) There shall be no appeal from any order passed by a Mamlatdar under this Act. Collector’s powers to revise Mamlatdar’s proceedings:-

¶105

(2). But the Collector may call for and examine the record of any suit under this Act, and if he considers that any proceeding, finding or order in such suit is illegal or improper, may, after due notice to the parties pass such order thereon, not inconsistent with this Act, as he thinks fit.

¶106

(2A) Delegation of Collector’s powers. – The Collector may delegate the powers conferred on him by this section to any Assistant Collector, Deputy Collector or Assistant Commissioner subordinate to him:

¶107

(3) Collector deemed to be a Court. – Where the Collector, Assistant Collector, Deputy Collector or Assistant Commissioner takes any proceeding under this Act, he shall be deemed to be a Court under this Act.

¶108

Bar of certain suits . – No suit shall lie under this Act -

¶109

(a). against Government or against any Government officer in respect of any act done or purporting to be done by any such officer in his official capacity, except where acting as a manager or guardian duly constituted under any law for the time being in force; or

¶110

Page 12 of 20

¶111

C/SCA/101/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶112

(b). in respect of any removal of any impediment or of any dispossession, recovery of possession or disturbance of possession, that has been the subject of previous proceedings, to which the plaintiff or his predecessor in interest was a party under this Act, or in a Civil Court, or under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898).”

¶113

Mr Malkan, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended before us that the right of way over a property by way of easement being a very complicated mixed question of law and fact, vesting of such a right of adjudication in favour of a Mamlatdar and without even providing any regular First Appeal before any judicial forum affects the substantial legal right of a citizen over the property and as such, the said question should be decided by a Civil Court which is vested with the authority to decide the right in the nature of civil right. According to Mr Malkan, deprivation of such a remedy to have such right adjudicated through judicial authority affects legal and fundamental right of a citizen and is against the basic principle embodied in our Constitution. Mr Malkan contends that as provided in the Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been specifically barred over the disputes which are the subject-matters of the Act in question as provided in Section 5 and, therefore, the fate of an ordinary citizen as regards his legal right in the immovable property covered within the purview of the Act will lie in the hands of an Executive Officer of the State.

¶114

Page 13 of 20

¶115

C/SCA/101/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶116

8.1 In other words, according to Mr Malkan, the taking away of the power of Civil Court to decide the aforesaid question is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Mr Malkan, therefore, prays for a declaration that the Act is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶117

After hearing Mr Malkan, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners and after going through the materials on record, we are not convinced by any of the submissions made by him.

¶118

We do not dispute for a moment that the subject-matter of the dispute, the adjudication of which has been conferred upon the Mamlatdar, is within the competence of the State Legislature and, thus, in this case, the legislative incompetency of the legislature of enactment of such a provision cannot be alleged. The law is equally settled that the Legislature may by express or implied words by way of enactment take away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of matters which are ordinarily decided by a civil court in terms of section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We fail to appreciate the contention of Mr Malkan that merely because by virtue of such adjudication by an executive, the legal right of a citizen can be affected, such fact will make the provision of such adjudication ultra vires the Constitution of India. By way of enactment of the statutes by a competent Legislature, right to decide questions relating to the subject-matters thereof are often given to the executives prescribed

¶119

Page 14 of 20

¶120

C/SCA/101/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶121

therein and, as a result of such adjudication, the legal rights of a person is definitely affected. It is equally well-established law that if by the action of a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India any of the legal or fundamental rights of a citizen is infringed, the aggrieved citizen has a right to move a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶122

In the Act with which we are concerned, admittedly there is no right of appeal against any adjudication of a Mamlatdar but, at the same time, a right of revision has been given in favour of the aggrieved against such adjudication before the Collector or his delegate. It is, thus, needless to mention that by taking aid of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the decision of a Revisional Authority against the order of Mamlatdar can be challenged before the High Court, if the said order has prejudicially affected any of the legal or fundamental rights of a citizen. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr Malkan that the illegal adjudication of a right in the property, which is the subject-matter of section 5 of the Act, cannot be remedied by approaching a judicial forum, e.g. the High Court. Thus, the jurisdiction of the High Court to have judicial review of the order passed by the Mamlatdar or the revisional power exercised by the Collector or his delegate is always subject to judicial review by a High Court and even a decision against the order of the High Court can be challenged before the Supreme Court of India.

¶123

Page 15 of 20

¶124

C/SCA/101/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶125

We are also not impressed by the submission of Mr Malkan that the absence of any right of appeal against the order of the original adjudicating authority will make the statute ultra vires . It is wellknown that right of appeal is a creature of statute and such right may be even subject to various conditions but merely because there is no provision in the Act providing for appeal, such provision cannot be said to be ultra vires .

¶126

Lastly, Mr Malkan strenuously contended that right of easement being a mixed question of law and fact of a complicated nature, the same should not be adjudicated in a summary way by the Mamlatdar, an Executive officer. We are also not impressed by such submission in view of the fact that we find that in the Act itself there is no bar of adjudication by taking oral evidence of the parties. We have also pointed out that there is a specific provision of examination of the witnesses and summoning of the witnesses and thus, the parties are entitled to lead both oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims and have also the right of cross-examination of the witnesses of the other side. Although, at this stage, Mr Malkan tried to impress upon us that there is no provision in the Act regarding application of the Evidence Act, we find that the application of the Evidence Act is implied. As provided in section 3 of the Evidence Act, “Court” includes all Judges and Magistrates and also persons, except Arbitrators, legally authorized to take evidence. Once

¶127

Page 16 of 20

¶128

C/SCA/101/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶129

we find that the court of Mamlatdar, a statutory authority, is vested with the power to take evidence by virtue of the provisions contained in the Act, the Mamlatdar exercising such power must be held to be a “Court” and, thus, by virtue of the above provisions of section 3 of the Act, both oral and documentary evidence coming within the purview of the definition of evidence can be led by the parties and consequently, the provisions of sections 135, 136, 137 and 138 of the Evidence Act will be applicable.

¶130

We, thus, find that the apprehension of Mr Malkan is baseless. Moreover, as provided in the proviso to section 5(b) of the Act, if in a case, the Mamlatdar considers it inequitable or unduly harsh to remove or course to be removed any such impediment or to give possession of any such property or to restore any such use to a person who has become entitled thereto merely by reason of the determination of any such tenancy or other right, or if it appears to him that such case can be more suitably dealt with by a Civil Court, he may in his discretion refuse to exercise the power aforesaid, but shall record in writing his reasons for such refusal. Thus, in the above circumstances, even Mamlatdar is vested with authority by exercising appropriate discretion in referring the matter to the decision of a Civil Court. If in a given case, under the circumstances mentioned in the proviso to section 5(b), a Mamlatdar refuses to send the matter for adjudication by a Civil Court, the aggrieved party can approach either the Collector or even thereafter, if he is still aggrieved, can move the

¶131

Page 17 of 20

¶132

C/SCA/101/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶133

High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India complaining failure of the part of a Statutory Authority to exercise appropriate discretion in the facts of the said case.

¶134

We, thus, find that the Legislature has taken appropriate care to prevent failure of justice in case of a particular type of adjudication where it would be inequitable or unduly harsh to give possession of any such property or restore any use to a person or where the same can be more suitably dealt with by a Civil Court.

¶135

It is now settled law that a legislative enactment can be struck down by the writ-court only on two grounds, viz. (1). the appropriate legislature does not have the competence to make the law, and, (2). it takes away or abridges any of the fundamental rights enumerated in Part-III of the Constitution or any other constitutional provisions. In this connection, we may profitably refer to the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. v. McDowell and Company reported in (1996) 3 SCC 709 in paragraph 43, pages 737-738 as under:

¶136

“A law made by Parliament or the Legislature can be struck down by Courts on two grounds and two grounds alone, viz., (1) lack of legislative competence and (2) violation of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part-III of the Constitution or of any other constitutional provision. There is no third ground. ...... ........ Similarly, if an enactment is challenged as violative of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by

¶137

Page 18 of 20

¶138

C/SCA/101/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶139

clauses (a) to (g) of Article 19(1), it can be struck down only if it is found not saved by any of the Clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 and so on. No enactment can be struck down by just saying that it is arbitrary or unreasonable. Some or other constitutional infirmity has to be found before invalidating an Act. An enactment cannot be struck down on the ground that Court thinks it unjustified. Parliament and the Legislatures, composed as they are of the representatives of the people, are supposed to know and be aware of the needs of the people and what is good and bad for them. The Court cannot sit in judgment over their wisdom.”

¶140

16.1 We have already pointed out that this is not a case where there is lack of legislative competence and at the same time, it has also not violated any of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution or any other constitutional provisions.

¶141

On consideration of the entire materials on record, we, therefore, find that the provisions contained in the Mamlatdar’s Court Act are not ultra vires any of the provisions of the Constitution of India.

¶142

We, accordingly, dismiss this Special Civil Application and, at the same time, make it clear that the second prayer of the petitioners regarding legality of the order passed by the Mamlatdar and affirmed by the revisional authority has not been considered by us and dismissal of this application will not stand in the way of the petitioners in challenging that portion of the prayer before

¶143

Page 19 of 20

¶144

C/SCA/101/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶145

appropriate forum in accordance with law.

¶146

Sd/- (BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, CJ.)

¶147

Sd/- (J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)

¶148

mathew

¶149

Page 20 of 20

Lakshmanbhai Ukabhai Parmar v. Karmsibhai Lalabhai Parmar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Lakshmanbhai Ukabhai Parmar v. Karmsibhai Lalabhai Parmar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shree Yogkshem Foundation for Human Dignity Vs State of Gujarat

Farook Shaikh Vs State of Gujarat

Bhanubhai Nagabai Odedara Vs State of Gujarat

Girish M Das Vs State of Gujarat

Kabhaibhai @ Kaliyo Punambhai Parmar Vs State of Gujarat

Dashrathbhai Mohanbhai Rathod Vs State of Gujarat