Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

25. While deciding the said case, reliance had been placed by this Court on the judgment in Stevenson v. Oliver, (1841) 151 E.R. 1024, wherein it has been held as under:-

"There is a difference between temporary statues and statutes which are repealed: the later (except so far as they relate to transactions already completed under them) become as if they had never existed; but with respect to the former, the extent of the restrictions imposed, and the duration of the provisions, are matters of construction................It is by no means a consequence of an Act expiring, that rights acquired under it should likewise expire.....................Therefore, even as regards the effect of the repealing of an earlier Act made by a temporary Act, the intention of the temporary Act in repealing the earlier Act will have to be considered and no general or inflexible rule in that behalf can be laid down."

27. The general rule in'regard to a temporary statute is that, in the absence of special provision to the contrary, proceedings/action being taken under it will ipso facto terminate as soon as the statute expires. When a temporary Act is repealed, the proceedings, instituted under such an Act, terminate at the time the temporary Act would have otherwise expired; However, the legislature can and, often enough does not avoid such anomalous consequences by enacting in the temporary statute a saving provision, and the effect whereof is the same as in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. (Vide S. Krishhan and Ors. v. The State of Madras and Anr., AIR 1951 SC 301; The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Seth Jagamander Das and Ors., AIR 1954 SC 683 and Gopi Chand v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1959 SC 609).

28. There is a difference between temporary statutes and statutes which are repealed; the later (except so far as they relate to transaction already completed under them) become as if they had never existed; but with respect to the former, the extent of the restrictions imposed and the duration of the provisions are matters of construction. Once a temporary statute expires, it ceases altogether to have effect as if it had never been, except as to transactions passed, and closed if the operation of an Act is withdrawn by a Notification of the State, such a withdrawal cannot be recorded as being in any sense of repeal (Vide B. Bansgopal v. Emperor, AIR 1933 All 669). The legislature may expressly insert some special provision stipulating that even after the temporary Act expires, its operation and impact may be saved in relation to particular matters. However, that remains a matter of construction regarding the operation and effect of such statutory provisions (Vide Raja Ram Om Prakash v. Union of India and Ors., 1971 All. L.J. 231).

29. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Trust Mai Lachhmi Sialkoti Bradari v. Chairman, Amritsar Improvement Trust and Ors., AIR 1963 SC 976, held that when a temporary Act expires, any appointment, notification, order, rule, bye-law made or issued under the expired Act, will also cease to be operative, and will not be revived or continued even if the expired Act is re-enacted.

30. Thus, from the above, an inference can be drawn that the rights accrued under a temporary Act do not survive if the statute is repealed, unless the repealing Act provides for it. In case of a temporary Act, the effect of its expiry is to be determined considering the nature of the right or obligation arising out of the said temporary Act and upon their character as to whether the said rights and obligations are enduring or not.