NITYANANDA PANIGRAHI Vs. BASUDEB PATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE seven appeals have been directed at the instance of defendant No. 1 against a reversing judgment and separate decrees passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Berhampur in suits for a declaration that the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments was illegal and not binding on the plaintiff and for recovery of the disputed properties.

(2.) SEVEN separate suits were filed, but in view of the fact that the defendants were common and common questions of fact and law arose, the suits were made analogous in the original and the lower appellate courts. One common judgment was delivered in the appellate court and in this Court the Second Appeals have been made analogous also.

(3.) AT this point it would be appropriate to find out and give a determination as to whether Madras Act 1 of 1925 was ultra vires. It is not disputed that if the legislative process indicated in the Government of India Act, 1915 was not satisfied the Act would not be a valid one. "The Council" occurring in Section 81-A of the Government of India Act, 1915, seems to have no ambiguity and must have reference to the council that passed the Bill. The statute making process in countries like New Zealand, Australia and elsewhere the constitution whereof had been indicated almost in the self-same language had adopted the same process, and even subsequently in 1935 the Government of India Act made dear provisions to that effect. That also appears to be the spirit of the Act. A Bill which had been shaped, processed and was in some stage before it had really been finally passed by one particular council could not be imposed on the succeeding council. If it had become a Statute the position was different, but if it was somewhere half way it was considered befitting to have it dropped by allowing it to lapse and permit the new council to think of its own legislation unfettered by any measure undertaken by its preceding council and left in an incomplete stage. The succeeding Council which passed Madras Act 2 of 1927 seems also to have accepted the position. The preamble of that Act stated.