ECIL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is of widest possible amplitude in the matter of grant of relief, but, that power is, however, limited by its very nature, since the Court desirous of protecting the citizens' constitutional rights and for strengthening the socio-economic fabric, needs to move with a degree of judicial circumspection with certain self-imposed limitations and in accordance with known principles of law. The Court needs to balance the authority of the past with the urges of the future. The essential identity of the institution that it is a Court must remain preserved so that every action of the Court is informed by fundamental norms of law and by the principles embodied in the Constitution and other sources of law. Roscopound's doctrine of flexibility of the law Courts ought to be read in consonance with the above limitations and not d'hors the same. The institutional remedy as the Constitution provides must be offered and not anything beyond the same. While it is true that the Court should not hesitate or falter to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226, in the event if it is exercised, it should take care to remain within the restraints of its jurisdiction.

(2.) Having dealt with the basic features of exercise of jurisdiction of the Constitutional Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution and before turning our attention to the core point of discrimination raised in these writ petitions, let us now advert to the factual background giving rise to these writ petitions and the relevant provisions of the Act. The petitioners herein are Associations/Unions of employees employed in Public Sector undertakings, Banks, Central Government Departments and in private Industries. Some of the Associations represent the employees of the rank of officers in Public Sector undertakings. In some writ petitions, businessmen or Associations representing the businessmen, Contractors and Transport Agents also figure as petitioners. They challenge the constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1987. The collection and recovery of profession tax at enhanced rates as per First Schedule to the said Act as amended by Act 29 of 1996 with effect from 1-8-1996 is being questioned. Some of the writ petitions were filed at the point of time when Ordinance No.21 of 1996 (which was later replaced by Act 29 of 1996) was in force. In a few writ petitions, the relevant amended entry in the First Schedule prescribing the rates of tax has been challenged as violative of constitutional provisions.

(3.) A.P. Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employment Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was enacted in the year 1987. The maximum rate of profession tax then prescribed was Rs.250.00 per annum. This was in conformity with the ceiling prescribed by Article 276 of the Constitution. There was an unsuccessful challenge to the said Act by various sections of professionals and employees. However, the then existing Explanation No. 1 was struck down by this Court in W.P.Nos.13066, 13382 and 14184 of 1987 dated 17-7-1992. But that is not relevant for the purpose of these writ petitions; hence we need not go into the details thereof.