2006 (7) TMI 648

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Section 14(1)(J-2) of the said Act, he was held to have disqualified himself to hold the said post by the Additional Collector, Jalna. An appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellant herein was dismissed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner by an order dated 2.8.2004. A writ petition preferred by the appellant, questioning the legality of said orders was dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment and order. The appellant is, thus, before us. The short question raised by Mr. Sanjay V. Kharde, learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that Section 14(1)(J-2) of the Act is prospective in nature and thus, the concerned respondents as also the High Court acted illegally and without jurisdiction in arriving at ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed to hold the post of member of Panchayat would bring within its purview also those who were continuing to hold post. It may be true the amendment came into effect on 8.8.2003. The legislative policy emanating from the aforesaid provision, in our opinion, is absolutely clear and unambiguous. By introducing the said provision, the legislature, inter alia, intended that for the purpose of bringing grassroot democracy, a person should not be permitted to hold two posts created in terms of Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act. It is true that ordinarily a statute is construed to have prospective effect, but the same rule does not apply to a disqualifying provision. The inhibition against retrospective construction is not a rigid rule. It does ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....an act, legal at the time of doing it, should be made unlawful by some new enactment." This principle has now been recognised by our Constitution and established as a Constitutional restriction on legislative power." While construing the beneficial provisions of 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in Boucher Pierre Andre vs. Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi & Anr. [(1975) 1 SCC 192], this Court opined:                "This section, on a plain natural construction of its language, posits for its applicability a fact situation which is described by the clause "where an accused person has, on conviction, been sentenced to imprisonment for a term".....