Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner states that the State Legislature lacks legislative competence to enact any law against a public purpose; neither in its object, nor in the Act itself, is any public purpose shown to be involved; the legislative power to enact the impugned Act,which has resultedin conferment of huge benefits and largesse on the Ex- Chief Ministers of the State, has been exercised in a non-transparent and arbitrary manner bereft of any public interest; the impugned legislation is ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as it arbitrarily creates a separate and special class of citizens i.e. former Chief Ministers, and treats them differently from any other citizen of India without a reasonable basis, intelligible differentia or lawful consideration recognised by the Constitution; not taking market rent from the private respondents, after they have demitted their constitutional office of Chief Ministers, is discriminatory; the legislation is in violation of the economic justice principle,guaranteed by the Preamble, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution;the impugned Act arbitrarily facilitates charging of appropriate rent in the form of "standard rent",though no such standard rent is provided for any other citizen of India; determination of standard rent, not being equal to market rent applicable to citizens for unauthorised and illegal occupation of Government property, is an arbitrary exercise of power merely to give undue benefit to the private respondents; as a result of the impugned Act, huge monetary loss would be caused to the State of Uttarakhand for a sum exceeding Rs. 13.03 crores; even electricity, water and other facilities have been arbitrarily defined in the Act as "standard rent" to be determined by the Government of Uttarakhand in an arbitrary manner; while citizens are liable to pay electricity, water, sewerage charges etc at the market or service provider determined rates, the impugned Act enables the State Government to prescribe lesser rates for the Ex-Chief Ministers, which amounts to illegal discrimination; the impugned legislation seeks to nullify the mandamus issued in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 90 of 2010 dated 03.05.2019; Section 6 of the Act is unconstitutional as it validates retrospectively various illegal orders issued by the State Government for house allotment; a new provision has been retrospectively introduced to overrule/overturn the judgment of this Court which is in violation of the principle of separation of powers - a part of the basic structure; it is an impossibility in law to remove the basis of the judgment as the financial liabilities, relating to the financial years 2000-01 to 2018-19, are sought to be justified, and the expenditure incurred illegally in the previous years are sought to be validated; the special procedure prescribed for according legislative sanction, for the expenditure to be incurred, is impossible to comply in the year 2020, as the expenditure has already been incurred over the past 19 years; it is impossible to now pass a money bill to validate financial liability retrospectively; as no financial powers can be exercised or expenditure incurred if it is not in public interest, the impugned legislation is in violation of Article 282; as Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, which provides various facilities to the Ex-Chief Ministers free of cost, is a "law" within the meaning of Article 199, the special procedure prescribed in Articles 202 and 207 ought to have been followed; failure to do so is a colourable exercise of legislative power, and is unconstitutional; and as allotment of government property to the private respondents, on the basis of the 1997 Rules, was still born and void ab initio, such action cannot be given life by the impugned Act, that too retrospectively.

11. It is also stated, in the counter-affidavit, that the impugned Act is not in violation of Article 282 of the Constitution; the contention that the impugned legislation attempts to nullify the mandamus issued to the State of Uttarakhand is fallacious;making a retrospective law is not to overturn/set-aside the judgment of this Court; there is no violation of the principle of separation of powers; the impugned Act covers issues which were not there in the earlier round of litigation; the Act in question cannot be termed as a money bill; the plea regarding Article 199(b) is misconceived; the special procedure, prescribed under Articles 202 and 207, is not applicable; it was also not required to be followed in enacting Act 5 of 2020; adoption of the special procedure cannot be pressed since the expenditure, already incurred from 09.11.2000 till 31.03.2019, has been correctly justified in the Act; and the legislature has made the impugned Act in the exercise of its powers under the Constitution, and by following due process of law.

35. Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the present law, passed retrospectively, is a special kind of legislation which has financial repercussions; among the reasons, why this Court had declared extending such facilities to the former Chief Ministers to be illegal, is that the procedure prescribed in Articles 202 to 207 of the Constitution had not been complied with, before providing free facilities to them; it is now impossible to comply with the procedure prescribed in Articles 202 to 207 with respect to the expenditure already incurred over the last 19 years; the impugned Act is, therefore, unconstitutional; expenditure can only be incurred by the State Executive through a demand for grants; there cannot be a post-expenditure demand for grants or its sanction; there is an element of impossibility in now seeking to enact a law ratifying the expenditure already incurred in extending undue benefits to the Ex-Chief Ministers; the only recourse is to now recover the money, incurred for their benefit, from the respondent Ex-Chief Ministers; the impugned Legislation is not an Appropriation Act; passing of an Appropriation Act is a pre-condition for expenditure to be incurred by the Executive; and it is not permissible for the Executive to first incur expenditure, and then for an Act to be passed ratifying such expenditure. Reliance is placed by him on Article 282 of the Constitution of India, and on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhim Singh[31].

36. In its order, in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 90 of 2010 dated 03.05.2019, the Division Bench had held that, if any money (except that which is charged on the Consolidated Fund) is to be withdrawn for any governmental purpose, then there must be an Appropriation Act; any expenditure which the Government incurs, in implementing its policies, should also be authorized by the Appropriation Act which is a "law" contemplated by Article 282; an Appropriation Bill is a Money Bill in terms of Article 199(1)(c) which should be introduced as per Article 196, and dealt with under Article 198; the "law" referred to in the Constitution, for sanctifying expenditure from and out of the Consolidated Fund of the State, was the Appropriation Act; and, in the absence of an Appropriation Act being passed by the State Legislature sanctioning such expenditure, no expenditure, in connection with the provision of facilities like water, electricity, vehicles, petrol, diesel etc to the Ex-Chief Ministers, could have been incurred by the State Legislature.