ARINGDAS RAI Vs. BIR BAHADUR RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- In this Writ Petition, the proceeding before the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority under the Sikkim Cultivators Protection (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1975 (herein for short the Cultivators Act), have been challenged by the petitioner on four grounds and they are :-

(2.) As to the ground No. 1, the Petitioner was wholly under an erroneous impression. The Cultivators Act, which was undoubtedly a temporary legislation, came into force on 8-9-1975 and under the provisions of S. 1(3) thereof, as originally enacted, was to remain in operation for a period of two years from that date, but the State Government was empowered to extend the period by Notification for a further period not exceeding one year. But by a series of amendments, this period of one year was enlarged from time to time and finally the expression "one year" stood substituted by the expression "six years" and as a result of appropriate Notifications by the State Government, the Act stood extended for a further period of six years over and above the original period of two years fixed by the Legislature and the Act thus expired in Sept. 1983. The application having admittedly been filed on 25-8-1981, the Act was very much in operation on that date and this has been finally conceded by Mr. Moulik, the learned counsel for the petitioner, at a later stage of the argument. But though the case was pending when the Act was still in force, the same has been disposed of and the final order has been passed on 9-2-1984, that is, several months after the expiry of the Act. Did the pending proceeding lapse with the expiration of the temporary legislation whereunder it was initiated?

(3.) The general rule as to the effect of repeal of an enactment, as distinguished from automatic expiry of a temporary enactment by efflux of time limited thereby, is embodied in S. 6 of the Central General Clauses Act, 1897, whereunder all acts and events taking place before the repeal would continue to be governed by the repealed Act notwithstanding its repeal and, in particular, as provided in Cl.(e) thereof, the repeal shall not affect any legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the repealed enactment and any such legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced as if the repealed Act had not been passed. But though the principle is the same even when the Act repealed is a temporary one, the principle does not apply when a temporary Act automatically expires with the expiration of the time limited therefor and is not repealed at any time before such expiry. And the general rule as to the effect of expiry of a temporary Act is that, in the absence of special provision to the contrary, proceeding initiated under a temporary Act ipso facto terminates with the expiry of the Act and if any authority is needed for this well established proposition, reference may be made to the observations of Patanjali Sastri J. in the Supreme Court decision in S. Krishnan v. State of Madras AIR 1951 SC 301 at p. 304, referred to with approval by Gajendragadkar, J. in State of Orissa v. Bhupendra Kumar AIR 1962 SC 945 at 953 and also by Krishna Iyer, J. in Qudrat Ullah v. Municipal Board, Bareilly, AIR 1974 SC 396 at p. 404. But the provisions of the Central General Clauses Act, 1897 and the principles deduced therefrom would obviously apply to the interpretation of the Central enactments only and that is why different States have enacted their own enactments for the interpretation of the State Acts, though generally in the line of the Central Act. But the Sikkim Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1977 has, though mainly following the Central pattern, overthrown the aforesaid rule of interpretation as to the expiry of temporary enactments and S.21 thereof has categorically provided that notwithstanding the expiry of a temporary Sikkim enactment, such expiration shall not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under such enactment and Cl.(d) thereof provides in particular that any legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation or liability may be instituted, continued or enforced as if the enactment had not ceased to have effect or ceased to operate. This being the position under the Sikkim Interpretation and General Clauses Act, by which the interpretation of the Cultivators Act would be governed, the expiry of the Act would not affect the disposal of the proceeding pending when the Act was in force and operative.