Validating legislation cannot override a binding judgment without clearly curing the defect in the underlying levy.

A validating statute cannot, by a bare declaration, nullify a judicial decision or cure a defect in a levy without clearly amending the underlying law. The Court noted that retrospective amendment is permissible within constitutional limits, but the impugned Act did not set out any effective amendment to remove the need for prior sanction for the enhanced coal cess. Because the enactment was confined to specified notifications and did not validly regularise the defect in the parent law, the attempted validation failed and the enhanced cess, together with acts done under the notifications, remained unlawful.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Madhya Pradesh Koyala Upkar (Manyatakaran) Adhiniyam, 1964 validly confirmed the enhanced coal cess levied under the notifications dated 22 December 1943, 29 July 1946 and 19 July 1947 and rendered effective all acts done in pursuance of those notifications.

Analysis: The Act was a taxing and validating statute intended to cure the defect earlier pointed out in the prior decision that enhancement of the cess beyond the original rate required previous sanction. The validating provision stated, in general terms, that the cess imposed under the specified notifications shall be deemed to have always been validly imposed as if the earlier enactment had been amended, but it did not set out the amendments actually made or disclose the nature of the supposed amendment. The Court held that a legislature may retrospectively amend a law within constitutional limits, but it cannot, by a bare declaration, overrule or nullify a judicial decision properly rendered between the parties and binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Since the Act was confined to the named local authority and the specified notifications, and did not expressly and effectively amend the earlier law so as to remove the defect in sanction, the validating attempt failed.

Conclusion: The validation Act did not legalise the enhanced cess or the steps taken under the impugned notifications, and the challenge to the levy succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A legislature may retrospectively amend the law, but it cannot merely declare a judicial judgment ineffective or validly validate a levy without clearly enacting the amendment that cures the defect in the underlying law.

---