Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. Shri Borkute, learned counsel has relied upon Article 196 of the Constitution of India to urge that Ordinance No. XVI of 2016 needed to be considered and cleared by both Houses. According to him, such Ordinance ought to have originated in either House and here Amendment Bill originated in the office of the Governor. He has also relied upon the provisions of Article 243-R to Article 243-ZA to urge that these provisions in the Constitution squarely occupied the position in relation to Municipal Corporation and Municipalities and here by issuing Ordinance, State Government has indirectly amended the Constitution. To explain his contentions to the Court, he also invited our attention to para 15 of Writ Petition No. 6351 of 2016.

17. Shri Manohar, learned Senior Advocate for the State submitted that the Ordinance issued by the office of the Governor itself show satisfaction and that satisfaction has not been challenged as per law in present matters. The reasons for satisfaction are not required to be mentioned in Ordinance. If the petitioners make out any case, the Court may call upon the respondents to produce relevant records and peruse the reasons. However, in present matter there is no such need and effort. He further points out that Act No. IX of 2017 is passed by the competent body and there is no challenge to its validity or then to retrospective operation of amendment. He submits that law made by the competent Legislature can be assailed only if it is beyond its powers or then it infringes fundamental rights or any other similar right. He draws support from para 82 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. vs. United Yarn Tex. (P) Ltd. & Ors., reported at (2007) 6 SCC 236. He further contends that as there is no independent challenge to Act No. IX of 2017, alleged defects in Ordinance issued, cannot be used to defeat the legislative mandate. He further submits that Article 196 of the Constitution of India is in relation to Money Bill and the Ordinance cannot be seen as Bill at all. He further submits that language in Article 213 is clear. It gives an Ordinance life of six months and six weeks, if the Houses meet at interval of six months. It does not also impose any power of promulgation of Ordinance. He also adds that in emergent situations like flood, earthquake, problem to be addressed may be urgent as also temporary. Hence, Ordinance issued may be short lived and as the problem is over, it may never be placed before any of the Houses. He, therefore, contends that not placing of Ordinance before the House by itself is not a decisive factor.

consideration of the State Legislature was considered and passed by the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly for the second time on 09.12.2016 and by Legislative Council on 17.12.2016."

35. This para, therefore, shows that in Winter Session, Ordinance dated 30.08.2016 has been considered by both Houses. The amendment sought to be introduced in Municipal Acts was already incorporated in Bill No. XXVI of 2016. This Bill was under consideration of State Legislature. It was cleared by Legislative Assembly on 26.07.2016 and transmitted to Legislative Council. Because of prorogation, Legislative Council was not able to consider it and this incomplete consideration, therefore, was available to both Houses. Article 196 (1) specifically states that such a bill may originate in any House. Under sub-article (2), a Bill shall not be deemed to have been passed by the Houses of the Legislature of a State having a Legislative Council unless it has been agreed to by both Houses. Under Article (3) a Bill pending in the Legislature of a State does not lapse by reason of the prorogation of the House or Houses thereof. Sub article (4) & (5) are on effect of dissolution of Houses and we are not concerned with that contingency. Thus, Bill No. 26 of 2016 does not lapse and remains alive even after 5.8.2016 due to Continuation Ordinance XVI of 2016. Here, Bill No. XXVI of 2016 was again placed before the Legislative Assembly on 09.12.2016 and Legislative Assembly cleared it again. Thereafter it was transmitted to and cleared by the Legislative Council also on 17.12.2016.