Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P Nos.4615/2018, 1715/2018, 1983/2018 and 1988/2018 submit that the impugned provisions of the Act of 2017 and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder defining NRI namely, section 3(J) of the Act of 2007 and Regulation 2(Tha) of the Regulations of 2017, is beyond the legislative competence of the State and is, therefore, ultra vires. It is submitted that the definition of NRI incorporated in the Act and the Rules, by taking aid of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, perse establishes the fact that the State which is not competent to legislate in the field of Income Tax has done so by borrowing the definition of NRI from the Income Tax Act.

22. The learned Dy. Advocate General further submits that the definition of NRI under the Act has been borrowed from the Income Tax Act. However mere incorporation of the said definition does not mean and cannot be construed to mean that the State is legislating in respect of Income Tax. It is submitted that the Bunch definition has been borrowed from the Income Tax Act and has been incorporated in the State Act only for the purposes of defining NRIs and the validity as well as the legislative competence of the State to enact the Act of 2007 as well as the Rules framed thereunder has already been affirmed and upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Modern Dental College (supra) and in such circumstances the petitions filed by the petitioners deserve to be dismissed.

Parliament and the legislatures, composed as they are of the representatives of the people, are supposed to know and be aware of the needs of the people and what is good and bad for them. The court cannot sit in judgment over their wisdom. ...."

The same view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Rakesh Kohli and another, (2012) 6 SCC 312.

37. When the validity of the Act of 2007 is adjudged on the aforesaid parameters it is worth noting that the Supreme Court in the case of Modern Dental College (supra) has already upheld the validity of the Act of 2007 and the Rules of 2008 and has held that the State has the legislative competence to enact the aforesaid provisions. The definition of NRI has been borrowed by the State legislature from the provisions of the Income Tax Act and no fault can be found with the same as legislation by incorporation is a legally accepted method of legislation. In addition, the constitutional validity of Regulation 6(2) of the Regulations of 2017, has also been upheld by this Court in the case of Association of Private Medical Colleges (supra) decided on Bunch 31.7.2017 after duly taking into consideration and rejecting the submission of the petitioners therein that the Regulation was unreasonable and contrary to and beyond the scope of the Act of 2007, and rejecting the same.

39. As the Supreme Court in the case of Modern Dental College (supra) has already held that the State Legislature has the legislative competence to enact the Bunch 2007 Act and the Rules framed thereunder and Regulation 6(2) has been held to be valid by this Court in the case of Association of Private Medical Colleges (supra) with which we are in respectful agreement and as we are of the considered opinion that the State has the legislative competence to define the term NRI by borrowing and incorporating the definition of that term from the Income Tax Act for the purposes of making admissions in private unaided professional institutions, therefore, we do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners as far as the challenge to the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Act of 2007, the Rules of 2008 and Regulation 6(2) of the Regulations of 2017 is concerned.