Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

36. The learned Advocate-General has argued that the amendments made to Section 1 of the Act provide a sufficient answer to the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. In my opinion the argument is irrefragable.

37. Mr. Bhatt has however endeavoured to meet this argument by contending that the amending Act was a curative statute and could not affect vested rights or validate an act originally done without authority. He has urged that the impugned assessment, made as it was, prior to the enactment of the amending Act, was an act done without authority and could not be validated by the amendments made under the later Act, which was enacted long after the appeal and the revision petition against such, assessment had been heard and decided.

ford's book on 'Statutory Construction', which read-

"Nevertheless, there are even limitations on. the extent of the retroactive operation of curative acts. Obviously, they cannot violate provisions of the constitution. Nor should they interfere with or destroy vested rights of third parties."

"On the other hand a curative statute cannot validate an act originally done without authority."

38. It seems to me that this contention cannot be accepted. In the first place, it cannot be said that the amending Act is merely a curative Statute. The effect of that legislation which provides that the principal Act shall be deemed to have come into force on 1-4-1951, is that the Act should be treated as having come into force on that date although in fact it had not so came into force.