ACHINTA KUMAR SAHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Our jurisdiction conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution can be taken away or otherwise affected only by or under the authority of the Constitution and not by any legislation whatsoever without such authority. That is why the provisions of Article 323A and Article 323B constituting Part XIV-A of the Constitution had to be inserted by way of Constitutional Amendment in 1976 to enable Parliament and other Legislatures to exclude our Constitutional Jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 in respect of matters to be adjudicated or tried by Tribunals to be constituted pursuant to the provisions of those Articles. When the paramount law of the land has conferred a jurisdiction, no other law can alter, circumscribe or take its way save under the express authority of that paramount law.

(2.) In this Court, there does not appear to be any appreciable difference of opinion as to the Collector being otherwise amenable to our superintending jurisdiction under Article 227 while discharging his functions under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in ordering confiscation of the essential commodities seized in pursuance of an Order made under Section 3 of the Act. But the cleavage of opinion appears to centre round the question as to whether section 6-E, in providing that in respect of any essential commodity seised,

(3.) A learned single Judge of this Court in Prodyot Kumar Das Mondal (1986 Criminal Law Journal 1206) appears-to be categorical that the expression "any Court, tribunal or other authority" in Section 6-E cannot but include the High Court also even in its jurisdiction under Article 227. Another learned single Judge in Kalachand Saha (1987 Criminal Law Journal 1375) is also equally assertive in holding that those provisions cannot affect the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 in any way. With respect, we agree with the view in Kalachand Saha (supra) and disent, with equal respect, from the view in Prodvot Kumar Das Mondal (supra) and we are inclined to think that the earlier Division Bench decision in Swadeshi Sugar Supplies (1980-1 Calcutta High Court Notes 338) goes a long way to lend assurance to the view we propose to take. We have no manner of doubt that out Constitutional Jursidiction under Art. 227 is far beyond the reach of S.6-E of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, notwithstanding the purported broad sweep and apparent amplitude of its provisions and would accordingly survive, with all its magnitude all such legislative onaslaughts.