Conditional legislation under debt recovery law upheld as higher exclusion threshold was found consistent with statutory purpose.

Section 1(4) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was construed as conditional legislation, not a delegation of legislative power. The Parliament had fixed the policy and framework, leaving the executive to specify a threshold within that scheme. Applying purposive interpretation and the Act's object of expeditious debt recovery, the Court held that the words permitting "such other amount" were wide enough to support a higher pecuniary limit. The notification enhancing the exclusion threshold to twenty lakh rupees was therefore valid, as it advanced the statutory purpose and did not exceed the enabling provision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Central Government was competent under Section 1(4) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 to notify a higher threshold of twenty lakh rupees for exclusion of debt recovery claims from the Act.

Analysis: The provision was construed in the light of the scheme, object, and statement of reasons of the Act. The Court held that Section 1(4) did not amount to a delegation of legislative power but operated as conditional legislation, the Parliament having fixed the policy and the permissible framework. Applying purposive interpretation and reading the provision as a whole, the Court found that the words allowing specification of "such other amount" were not confined only to a lower figure, and that the notification was supported by the legislative object of expeditious recovery of bank dues. The Court also relied on the data placed by the Union showing that smaller-value claims were consuming substantial tribunal resources, and held that the enhanced limit was neither arbitrary nor beyond the authority conferred by the statute.

Conclusion: The notification enhancing the pecuniary threshold to twenty lakh rupees was held valid, and the challenge to it failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected because the impugned notification was within the competence conferred by Section 1(4) and was consistent with the statutory purpose of speedy debt recovery.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute fixes a policy and permits the executive to specify a threshold within the statutory framework, the executive notification is valid if it advances the legislative object and does not transgress the limits of the enabling provision.

---