AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Mohan, J.—The writ petition is to prohibit the respondents, the Territory of Pondicherry represented by the Collector of Pondicherry,
from enforcing the provisions of the Pondicherry Pawn Brokers Act, 1966 as against the petitioner.
The petitioner has been carrying on the business of pawn-broking at Villiyanur Road, Nellitope, Pondicherry, after obtaining a licence under the
Pondicherry Pawn Brokers Act (XI of 1966). The Collector of Pondicherry inspected the petitioner''s shop on 9th May, 1974, and checked some
of the account books and also enquired one of the customers. After the said inspection the petitioner was issued with a notice on 10th May, 1974
to show cause why action should not be taken against him for those irregularities. The petitioner submitted an explanation. Not being satisfied with
the explanation, the Tahsildar, by an order dated 20th May, 1974, cancelled the licence of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
preferred an appeal to the Deputy Collector, Revenue, Pondicherry. Pending the appeal, he prayed for stay which was refused on 31st May,
1974. It is at this stage, the present writ petition has been preferred.
The only contention that is urged in the affidavit in support of the writ petition is that the Pondicherry Pawn Brokers Act, 1966, hereinafter called
as the Act, is a still-born legislation. The Act was passed by the Legislative Assembly of Pondicherry on 3rd June, 1966. Section 2(1) of the said
Act read as follows:
The Madras Pawn Brokers Act (XXIII of 1943) (hereinafter referred as the said Act) as is in force in the State of Madras immediately before the
commencement of the Act shall, extend to and come into force in the Union Territory of Pondicherry subject to the following notifications and
adaptations namely.
The Act was notified in the Gazette of Pondicherry on 15th October, 1966. In so far as the Legislative Assembly of Pondicherry extended and
adapted the Madras Pawn Brokers Act of 1943 with all its future amendments that may be made upto the date of commencement, it had
abdicated its legislative functions to the Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in B. Shama
Rao Vs. The Union Territory of Pondicherry, , this Act cannot be enforced against the petitioner. It is this contention which is also urged during the
hearing of the writ petition.
The learned Government Pleader of Pondicherry would say that this is not a case in which future amendment to the Tamil Nadu Pown Brokers''
Act was made applicable, but the Pawn Brokers'' Act,, as it stood, on the date of adoption was alone adopted by the Legislature which it was well
competent to do. Therefore, the decision in'' B. Shama Rao Vs. The Union Territory of Pondicherry, , is clearly distinguishable. On the contrary, in
D. Gobaloussamy Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Others, , it has been categorically laid down that it is open to the Pondicherry Legislature to
adopt any legislation of the Tamil Nadu. The decision in B. Shama Rao Vs. The Union Territory of Pondicherry, , struck down legislation which
chose to - adopt all the future amendments which is not present in this case. Since the decision of the Supreme Court in Shama Rao v. Union
Territory of Pondicherry, forms the only basis of the petitioner''s arguments, let me refer to that decision. In that case, the petitioner was a merchant
carrying on business in liquor and was a dealer within the meaning of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. Upto March, 1966 he was liable and was
paying certain taxes similar to the sales tax under the French regulations till then in force in Pondicherry. With the coming into force of the principal
Act, viz., the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, X of 1965, which was published on 3rd June, 1965 after the President''s assent on 25th May,
1965, he was served with a notice to register himself as a dealer and thereupon he filed a petition challenging the validity of the principal Act. It
was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the principal Act was void and was still-born legislation by reason of the Pondicherry Legislature
having abdicated its legislative assembly function in favour of the Madras State Legilature, such abdication resulted from the wholesale adoption of
the Madras Act as in force in the State of Madras immediately before the commencement of the principal Act and that Section 2(1) read with
Section 1(2) meant that the Legislature adopted not only the Madras Act as it was when it enacted the principal Act but also such amendment or
amendments in that Act which might be passed by the Madras Legislature upto the time of the commencement of the Act, i.e., upto 1st April,
1966. Section 2(1) provided that:
The Madras General Sales Tax Act (I of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as in force in the State of Madras immediately before the
commencement of this Act shall extend to and come into force in the Union Territory of Pondicherry subject to the following modifications and
adaptations....
Read with Section 1(2) meant that the Legislature adopted not only the Madras Act as it was when it enacted, the principal Act but also such
amendment or amendments in that Act which might be passed by the Madras Legislature upto the time of the commencement of the Act i.e., upto
1st April, 1966. In dealing with this contention it was held by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court at page 104:
The question then is whether in extending the Madras Act in the manner and to the extent it did u/s 2(1) of the principal Act the Pondicherry
Legislature abdicated its Legislative power in favour of the Madras Legislature. It is manifest that the Assembly refused to perform its legislative
function entrusted under the Act constituting it. It may be that a mere refusal may not amount to abdication if the Legislature instead of going
through the full formality of legislation applies its mind to an existing statute enacted by another Legislature for another jurisdiction, adopts such an
Act and enacts to extend it to the territory under its jurisdiction. In doing so, it may perhaps be said that it has laid down a policy to extend such an
Act and direct the executive to apply and implement such an Act. But when it not only adopts such an Act but also provides that the Act
applicable to its territory shall be the Act amended in future by the other Legislature, there is nothing for it to predicate what the amended Act
would be. Such a case would be dearly one of non-application of mind and one of refusal to discharge the function entrusted to it by the instrument
constituting it. It is difficult to see how such a case is not one of abdication or effacement in favour of another Legislature. at least in regard to that
particular matter.
Again at page 105 it is observed as follows:
In the present case it is clear that the Pondicherry Legislature not only adopted the Madras Act as it stood at the date when it passed the principal
Act but also enacted that if the Madras Legislature were to amend its Act prior to the date when the Pondicherry Government would issue its
notification it would be the amended Act which would apply. The Legislature at that stage could not anticipate that the Madras Act would not be
amended nor could it predicate what amendment or amendments would be carried out or whether they would be of a sweeping character or
whether they would be suitable in Pondicherry.
In point of fact the Madras Act was amended and by reason of Section 2(1) of the principal Act it was the amended Act which was brought into
operation in Pondicherry. The result was that the Pondicherry Legislature accepted the amended. Act though it was not and could not be aware
what the provisions of the amended Act would be. There was in these circumstances a total surender in the matter of sales tax legislation by the
Pondicherry Assembly in. favour of the Madras Legislature and for that reason we must agree with Mr. Desai, that the Act was void or as is often
called ""still-born"".
In construing the scope of the decision, a Division Bench of this Court in D. Gobaloussamy Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Others, , laid down
thus:
In B. Shama Rao Vs. The Union Territory of Pondicherry, , it has to be carefully noticed that the power of the Pondicherry Legislaure to extend
the Madras Act to Pondicherry State was, in itself, never in doubt. The relevant enactment was struck down, not on the ground of incompetency,
but because the Pondicherry Legislature adopted the Madras Act, as it stood, on the date when it passed the principal Act, but also enacted that
future amendments of that Madras Legislature, in respect of its Act, would be ipso facto applicable to the Pondicherry measure, or read as
incorporated with it. This was held by the Supreme Court to be an abdication by the Assembly, of its legislative function, which could not be
supported. Indeed, the argument of Mr. Setalvad was accepted that there could be valid delegation to adopt other State laws by extension.
It is exactly the situation mentioned in the Madras case cited above that is obtainable in this instant case. Therefore, it does not suffer from the vice
of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act. Hence I hold the argument of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Consequently, this writ petition will
stand dismissed with costs. Counsel''s fee Rs. 150.