RAMESHBHAI C PATEL Vs. DASHRATBHAI B SOLANKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) xxx xxx xxx.

(2.) It is contended by Mr. M. R. Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Spl. C. A. No. 13972/95 that the effect of amendment repealing sub-Sec. (3) of Section 166 of the Act is that, there is no limitation for filing the claim petitions under Section 166 of the M. V. Act, 1988. He further submits that the sub-Cl. (3) of Section 166 has been omitted retrospectively. It is contended that the amendment being a beneficial legislation should be construed in a manner which achieves the object. He relies 6n the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1995 SC 2268, wherein the Apex Court has held that the Court is required to give a liberal interpretation to a beneficial legislation. He also relies on a decision of this Court reported in 1977(18) GLR 467, wherein it is held that the jurisdiction of the Court should be exercised according to the justice, common sense and sound judgments and for advancing substantial justice. Mr. Shah contends that, on account of the amendment, a claimant can file a claim petition at any time. Even the present applicants can file afresh claim petitions, for which there is no limitation, then there should be no reason to refuse to decide the claim or merits. In support of this, he relies on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court reported in 1995 ACJ 739 in case of Radhabai v. Sureshpal.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Yogesh Ravani, learned Counsel submits that there is no error apparent in the order of the Tribunal which calls for any interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He has pointed out that the amendment under Section 166(3) of the Act has been brought after the decision of the Tribunal and therefore, that cannot have application to the present Special Civil Applications. He also submits that it is a settled law that a statute must always be interpreted prospectively unless the language of the statute makes them retrospective either expressly or by necessary implications, he referred to various decisions of the Apex Court as reported in AIR 1961 SC 1576, AIR 1984 SC 38, AIR 1965 SC 171, AIR 1960 SC 936, 1994(2) GLR 1091.