KUM.DHARINI R. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner sought to be ventilated in the writ jurisdiction of this Court is against he Endorsement dtd. 7/2/2018 a copy whereof is at Annexure-A. The same reads as under:

(2.) Learned AGA on request appearing for the official respondents submits that there is limitation clause enacted under the PDS Control Order, 2016 and apparently the application of the petitioner is time barred. He also submits that any amendment to law procedural is always retrospective unless otherwise indicated and that the law relating to limitation is treated as being procedural content.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is in complete agreement with the contention of learned AGA which is supported by the Apex Court decision in JOSE DE COSTA v BASCORA SADASHIVA SINAI NARCORNIM, AIR 1975 SC 1843. What Lord Denning observed in BLYTH V BLYTH, (1966) 1 ALL ER 524, also illuminates the same - "The rule that an Act of Parliament is not to be given retrospective effect applies only to statutes which affect vested rights. It does not apply to statutes which only alter the form of procedure or the admissibility of evidence, or the effect which the courts give to evidence." This apart, there is no challenge to the amended Rules that prescribe the limitation for applying for the transfer of PDS authorization.