1957 (1) TMI 34 - SC - Indian Laws

Assam Revenue Tribunal Act upheld by Supreme Court, appellate authority decisions restored

STATE OF ASSAM Versus SRISTIKAR DOWERAH

The Supreme Court held that Section 3(3) of the Assam Revenue Tribunal (Transfer of Powers) Act, 1948 was valid, as it did not constitute excessive ... Vires of s. 3(3) of the Assam Revenue Tribunal (Transfer of Powers) Act, 1948 (Assam Act No. 4 of 1948) and of the’ validity of the notification No. Rex. 184/52/39 issued by the Governor of Assam on July 5, 1955, in exercise of powers conferred on him by sub-a. (3) of a. 3 of the said Act appointing the Commissioner of Hills Division and, Appeals as, the appellate authority under the 1948 Act questioned Held that:- It cannot possibly be argued that the old 1946 Act tribunal, notwithstanding its abolition, continued to exist for the purpose of the 1948 Act, for subs. (2) of s. 7 quite clearly authorised the High Court and the Authority referred to in s. 3(3) but not the 1946 Act Tribunal to decide the appeals and applications for revision, which were pending before the old Assam Revenue Tribunal. It is clear that the tribunal was to sit in appeal over the decision of the Excise Commissioner and that by itself gives some indication that the person or persons to be appointed to the tribunal should have the requisite capacity and competency to deal with appeals from such high officials. We do not consider that there has been an excessive delegation of legislative power. The possibility of an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of a Division coming up before the authority referred to in s. 3 (3) cannot in our opinion affect the validity of the Notification whereby the Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals was appointed as the authority contemplated by s. 3 (3). At the highest it may be that the Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals exercising the powers of the authority referred to under s. 3 (3) may be disqualified from entertaining appeals from his own order, but that does not affect his power to entertain appeals from the Excise Commissioner. Even that situation will not arise, for under r. 341 of the Excise Rules appeals arising out of cases decided in the excluded areas by the Commissioner of Hills Division and reseals would go to the Governor. In any event the drop not appear to be any repugnancy between the Notification and the so called principle or policy of a. 9 of the 1910 Act as regards the hearing of appeals from the decisions of the Excise Commissioner. In our opinion there is no substance in this point. Appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Vires of Section 3(3) of the Assam Revenue Tribunal (Transfer of Powers) Act, 1948.2. Validity of Notification No. Rex. 184/52/39 issued by the Governor of Assam on July 5, 1955.3. Interpretation of Section 296(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935.4. Delegation of legislative power by the Provincial Legislature.5. Repugnancy to Section 9 of the Eastern Bengal and Assam Excise Act, 1910.Detailed Analysis:1. Vires of Section 3(3) of the Assam Revenue Tribunal (Transfer of Powers) Act, 1948:The High Court held that Section 3(3) of the 1948 Act was void, as it was repugnant to Section 296(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935, and constituted excessive delegation of legislative power. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that Section 296(2) did not impose an obligation on the Provincial Legislature to constitute a tribunal but merely authorized the Governor to constitute a tribunal until other provision was made by the Provincial Legislature. The Court held that Section 3(3) of the 1948 Act did not constitute excessive delegation, as the Assam Legislature had applied its mind and determined the distribution of appellate powers between the High Court and the authority appointed by the Provincial Government.2. Validity of Notification No. Rex. 184/52/39 issued by the Governor of Assam on July 5, 1955:The High Court found the notification invalid as it was repugnant to the scheme and policy of Section 9 of the 1910 Act. The Supreme Court, however, held that there was no repugnancy between the notification and Section 9 of the 1910 Act. The Court stated that the Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals could be appointed as the authority under Section 3(3) of the 1948 Act, and there was no impropriety in such an appointment.3. Interpretation of Section 296(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935:The High Court interpreted Section 296(2) as placing an obligation on the Provincial Legislature to constitute a tribunal, which it failed to do, thereby violating the mandate. The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation, stating that Section 296(2) authorized the Governor to constitute a tribunal to exercise the appellate jurisdiction until other provision was made by the Provincial Legislature. The Court held that the section did not impose any compulsion on the Provincial Legislature to make any provision.4. Delegation of legislative power by the Provincial Legislature:The High Court held that Section 3(3) of the 1948 Act constituted an excessive delegation of legislative power. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the Assam Legislature had determined the distribution of appellate powers and only left it to the Provincial Government to appoint persons to man the authority. The Court held that there was no excessive delegation of legislative power.5. Repugnancy to Section 9 of the Eastern Bengal and Assam Excise Act, 1910:The High Court found that the notification was repugnant to Section 9 of the 1910 Act. The Supreme Court held that there was no repugnancy, as the appellate jurisdiction of the Board (Provincial Government) under Section 9 was taken away by Section 296 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and vested in the Assam Revenue Tribunal, which was later replaced by the Assam High Court and the authority under Section 3(3) of the 1948 Act.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and restored the decisions of the appellate authority. The appeals were allowed, and the Court made no order as to costs in favor of the State of Assam, while the successful appellants in the other appeals were awarded costs from the respondents, including the State of Assam.