VEERNATH Vs. STATE OF HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE five Petitions challenge the constitutionality of the Hyderabad (Abolition of Cash Grants) Act on the ground of its provisions being discriminatory and confiscatory.

(2.) THE Act came into force from -July 30, 1952 and has since been amended twice. It consists of five Sections. Act No. 23 of 1954 has amended Sections 2 and 3 of the Impugned Act as well as its Schedule, which the amending Act has expanded and divided into Parts A, B and C. By other amending Act No. 14 of 1956, provisos have been added to Section 3 exempting minors, widows and grantees incapable of earning from the operation of Section 3 (2). Along with these -amendments the important provisions of the impugned Act are Section 3 and the Schedule; but ; before giving their details we would mention the substance of what other Sections enact.

(3.) IN case of males, if cash grant be the only source of income the grantee is to enjoy it till he attains the age of 18 years, and if females till her marriage or attainment of 18 years, whichever be earlier. There is a further proviso to these exemptions, that minor or cripple males, minor female or widow, if in receipt of more than one grant, and having no other source of income for livelihood, will receive the grant of the highest amount if such a person toe in receipt of more, than one grant The aforesaid exemptions were added by the amending Act No. 14 of 1956, and make obsolete parts of the complaints in the Writ Petitions Nos. 44, 50 and 51 which were filed in October and November 1954, concerning the Impugned Act being without rational classification. These petitions allege that if the object of exempting persons who had reached the age of sixty, and this exemption was in the original Act, be to provide for persons who were not able to earn their livelihood, the legislature has not taken into consideration cases of widows, minors, invalids and others, who are not able to earn their own livelihood.