1973 (9) TMI 115

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Aggrieved against the order dt. 23-3-1963 allowing a second appeal the Appellants filed a revision before the Commr. The Commr. held that the revision was not maintainable and dismissed it. The Appellants then instituted a writ petition in this Court. This Court held that the revision was maintainable. It sent the case back to the Commr. for deciding the revision on merits. The revision was disp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... special appeal. 3. Mr. G.P. Bhargava appearing for the Appellants urged that the judgment of this Court deciding a writ petition on an earlier occasion will operate as res judicata. It is true that normally a judgment which has become final operates as res judicata between the parties to the litigation on the points already decided. But this principle does not hold good when the Legislature al....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itself. That will in substance amount to amending the law from time to time. That is a power which vests exclusively in the law-making authority and not in the courts. The true rule appears to be that the counts declaration is co-extensive with the life of the law. It is effective for the whole of the time that that law re-j mains in force. It necessarily follows from this princi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wer of the Legislature to make law with retrospective effect. If there is any conflict between the declaration of law made by a court and the exercise of legislative power the declaration of law made by the Court will yield to the legislative enactment. In this view the Director had no jurisdiction to entertain or to decide the revision on merits. 5. In the next place it was argued that Section....