PREETHISINGH MUKANDSINGH SHIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While admitting Letters Patent Appeals being LPA No. 1106/2011, 1107/2011, 1111/2011 and 1116 of 2011 preferred by unsuccessful petitioners of four different Special Civil Applications, a Division Bench of this Court presided over by the then the Chief Justice directed that in view of the importance of the issue involved therein, the matters should be heard by a larger Bench. Consequently, this Bench was constituted for hearing all those four LPAs.

(2.) Mr. Trivedi further contended that the title and preamble of the enactment undoubtedly throws light on the intent and design of the legislature and indicate the scope and purpose of the legislation itself and when the language of the legislation is plain and clear, external evidence like parliamentary debates or speech of the Hon ble Ministr while introducing the Bill, wouldnot be admissible to construe the legislation.

(3.) Mr. Trivedi contends that it is settled legal principle of construction that ordinarily, extra territorial operation would not be intended by the legislature and that, therefore, a legislation enacted by the State legislature need not be all embarrassing and merely because the same is enacted for the benefit of the State, the same cannot be treated as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In support of the above proposition, Mr. Trivedi relied upon the following decisions of the Apex Court: