UNION OF INDIA Vs. MOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the Ex-officio Claims Commissioner appointed under Section 82-B of the Indian RAILWAYS ACT, 1989. When the Civil Revision petition came up for hearing in the first instance before our learned brother, Madhava Rao J., he referred the case to a Division Bench on the ground that Article 227 of the Constitution was subsequently amended by the Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act, 1976, and it is necessary to decide whether the old Article or the new article 227 would apply to the pending matters, and it being an important question of law it is desirable that it should be decided by a Division Bench.

(2.) According to the amended Article 227 of the Constitution a High Court has power of superintendence only over Courts which are subject to its appellate jurisdiction whereas according to the old Article 227 it has power of superintendence over all the courts and also over all the tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. The Claims Commissioner appointed under section 82-B of the Indian RAILWAYS ACT, 1989 is only a Tribunal and not a Court. Therefore, if new Article 227 of the Constitution applies this court cannot have jurisdiction of superintendence over it. It is only if the old Article 227 is to be applied, then only this court will have jurisdiction to deal with this Civil Revision petition. The Civil Revision Petition was filed on 13-2-1976. Thereafter the amended article 227 came into force on 1-2-1977. Then the question arises whether the amended article 227 which does not give the right of superintendence to the High Court over the Tribunals, applies to the pending matters in which case this court cannot deal with Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) It is provided under Art. 367 of the Constitution that unless the context otherwise requires, the General Clauses Act 1897, shall apply for the interpretation of the Constitution as it applies for the interpreta. tion an Act of the Legislature of the Dominion of India. According to S.6 (e) of the General Clauses Act where there is an amendment or repeal of a provision unless a different intention appears, it shall not affect any pending legal proceeding and it may be continued as if the repeal or amendment has not come into force. There is no provision in the Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act, 1976, making the new Article 227 applicable retrospectively affecting the pending matters. Wherever the Parliament intended any provision to have retrospective operation, it was so provided for in the Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act. For instance under Section 58 provision is made as to pending petitions under Article 226 to be dealt with under the amended Article 226. No such provision is made for pending matters under Article 227. Therefore, the Old Article 227 of the Constitution only applies to the present case. In Garikapati Vs. Subbaiah Choudary (1) AIR 1957 Supreme Court, P. 540 the Supreme Court said that in construing the articles of the Constitution Courts must bear in mind the cardinal rule of construction that statutes should be interpreted, if possible, so as to respect vested rights. The golden rule of construction is that, in the absence of anything in the enactment to show that it is to have retrospective operation, it cannot be so construed as to have the effect of altering the law applicable to a claim in litigation at the time when the Act was passed. The Supreme Court said that the same principle applies to the amendment of the Constitutional provisions also.