MAHINDRA MOHAN LAHIRI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have before us five petitions under the provisions of Article 226, Constitution of India and two Rules taken out under the provisions of Article 228. The petitions under Article 226, Constitution of India, are entitled original Misc. cases NOS. 64 to 68 of 1950, and the petitions under Article 228 are registered as civil Rules NO SECTION 104 and 105 of 1951. In all the seven matters, a declaration is sought against the constitutional validity of the Assam Management of Estates Act, 1949 (Act 17 of 1949) which received the assent of the Governor -General on 25 -10 -1949. For the sake of brevity the Assam Management of Estates Act, 1949, will hereafter be referred to as the impugned Act, the Bihar State Management of Estates and Tenures Act, 1949 (Bihar Act 21 of 1949) as the Bihar Act, and Legislative items NOS. 9 and 21 in List 2 of Schedule 7 to the Government of India Act, 1935, as items 9 and 21 in the 1935 Act, and item 36 in List 2 of Schedule 7 to the Constitution of India, as item 36 in the Constitution of India. In some of the petitions under Article 226, Constitution of India, the identity of the estates has been questioned. We do not propose to deal with the question of the identity of the estates as it should be properly raised in a suit. In none of the petitions under Article 228 has the identity of the estates been questioned.

(2.) MR . Ghose who appears for all the petitioners contends (i) that the impugned Act was not within the legislative competence of the Assam Legislature; (2) that the impugned Act is void as it does not conform to the provisions of Section 299, Government of India Act, 1935; (3) that the impugned Act is void as it infringes the petitioners' fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(f), onstitution of India, in that the provisions of the impugned Act are not reasonable restrictions imposed in the interest of the public; (4) that the certificate granted by the President of India under Article 31(6) does not debar this Court from considering the question as to whether the acquisition, if there was an acquisition of the estates involved,' was for a public purpose.

(3.) IN the matter of a challenge to the constitutional validity of a legislative enactment, it is necessary to bear in mind certain principles. As stated by Stone J. at p. 488, Frank's Cases on Constitutional Law (of the United States of America),