VASANLAL MAGANBHAI SANJANWALA THE PRATAP SPINNING WEAVING MANUFACTURING CO LIMITED Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY NOW MAHARASHTRA :STATE OF BOMBAY NOW MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(SC)-1960-8-24
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on August 25,1960

VASANLAL MAGANBHAI SANJANWALA,PRATAP SPINNING,WEAVING,MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BOMBAY,STATE OF BOMBAY (NOW MAHARASHTRA) Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

HARISHANKAR BAGLA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [RELIED ON]



Cited Judgements :-

MARCHI VS. MATHU RAIN [LAWS(DLH)-1968-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
BAKHSHI RAM VS. DURGA DASS [LAWS(DLH)-1969-11-7] [REFERRED]
LACHMI NARAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1971-1-2] [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. LACHMI NARAIN [LAWS(DLH)-1971-11-20] [REFERRED TO]
SWADESHI COTTON MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1978-2-13] [REFERRED TO]
INDULAL YAGNIK VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1962-5-1] [REFERRED]
INDULAL K YAGNIK VS. STATE [LAWS(GJH)-1962-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
KANTILAL POPATLAL SHAH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1965-4-10] [REFERRED]
FIRM MYSTERY RAJIBHAI SAVJIBHAI AND BROS VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1965-7-7] [REFERRED TO]
KANAIYALAL MANEKLAL CHINAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1965-7-9] [REFERRED]
D S PATEL AND CO VS. GUJARAT STATE TEXTILE CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-1970-9-6] [REFERRED]
SHRAVANKUMAR MAHADEV DEKOTE VS. ARVIND MILLS LIMITED AHMEDABAD [LAWS(GJH)-1984-9-24] [REFERRED]
SARJU PRASAD SAHU VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1961-8-12] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLA DAL MILLS VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1966-2-3] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA KUMAR MISRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1995-1-108] [REFERRED TO]
VINAY SAIHGAL VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-1983-8-5] [REFERRED TO]
DATLA VISSAM RAJU VS. BANDARU GOPALA RAO [LAWS(APH)-1961-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
G VENKATA RAMAIAH VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1963-6-11] [REFERRED TO]
MARRAPU VENKATASWAMY VS. NADIPALLI RAMAMOHAN RAO [LAWS(APH)-1963-11-37] [REFERRED TO]
K GOVINDA REDDY VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1967-12-25] [REFERRED TO]
K GOVINDA REDDY VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1967-12-25] [REFERRED TO]
D SRINIVASA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2000-11-63] [REFERRED TO]
K SATYANARAYANA VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2001-4-139] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGYANAGAR ENERGY AND TELECOM LTD VS. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD [LAWS(APH)-2003-3-74] [REFERRED TO]
K NCHANDRA SEKHARA VS. STATE OF MYSORE [LAWS(KAR)-1961-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
A H MAGERMANS VS. S K GHOSH [LAWS(CAL)-1962-11-12] [REFERRED TO]
KARKAL BALAKRISHNA RAO VS. STATE OF MYSORE [LAWS(KAR)-1970-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
HARADHAN MANDAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1973-9-23] [REFERRED TO]
MANINDRA BHUSAN SANYAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1975-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
ACHCHELAL S/O LALLULAL LOHAR VS. JANPADA SABHA [LAWS(MPH)-1962-9-12] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUTHILAKATHIRTHA SREEPADANGALAVANI SWAMIJI VS. STATE OF MYSORE [LAWS(SC)-1962-4-8] [AFFIRMED]
MOHMEDALLI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1962-11-45] [REFERRED TO]
CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA VS. LIBERTY CINEMA [LAWS(SC)-1964-12-1] [RELIED ON]
STATE OF NAGALAND VS. RATAN SINGH CONSTABLE 7873 [LAWS(SC)-1966-3-36] [REFERRED]
KHAMBHALIA MUNICIPALITY VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-1967-2-3] [REFERRED]
B SHAMA RAO VS. UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY [LAWS(SC)-1967-2-22] [REFERRED TO]
DEVI DAS GOPAL KRISHNAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-1967-4-37] [REFERRED]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI IN BOTH APPEALS VS. BIRLA COTTON SPINNING WEAVING MILLS DELHI IN BOTH THE APPEALS [LAWS(SC)-1968-2-20] [REFERRED TO]
V NAGAPPA VS. IRON ORE MINES CESS COMMISSIONER [LAWS(SC)-1973-4-1] [RELIED ON]
HIS HOLINESS KESAVANANDA BHARATI SRIPADAGALVARU SHRI RAGHUNATH RAO GANPAT RAO N H NAWAB MOHAMMAD IFTIKHAR ALI KHAN SHETHIA MINING AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION LIMITED THE ORIENTAL GOAL GO LIMITED VS. STATE OF KERALA:UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1973-4-33] [REFERRED]
PRAG ICE AND OIL MILLS NAV BHARAT OIL MILLS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1978-2-36] [OVERRULED]
P N KAUSHAL LAXMI NARAIN SHAM LAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1978-8-39] [REFERRED TO]
AVINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-1978-9-9] [REFERRED TO]
REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES TRIVANDRUM VS. K KUNJABMU [LAWS(SC)-1979-11-20] [RELIED ON]
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA CHANDRASEKHAR BOSE VS. D J BAHADUR:UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1980-11-7] [APPROVED]
RAMESH BIRCH S M MEHRA RAM KRISHNAN AND SONS CHARAN DASS SALUJA S S SODHI GURDIAL SINGH LAL SINGH SURINDER SHARMA SMT SWARAN KAUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1989-4-29] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH PHOTOGRAPHICS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1993-5-34] [REFERRED TO]
AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE VS. SHALIMAR CHEMICAL WORKS LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-1997-5-67] [RELIED ON]
TOPLINE SHOES LIMITED VS. CORPORATION BANK [LAWS(SC)-2002-7-73] [REFERRED]
VASU DEV SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2006-11-67] [REFERRED TO]
K T PLANTATION PVT LTD VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2011-8-39] [REFERRED TO]
TANVI TRADING AND CREDITS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [LAWS(DLH)-2004-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
PATEL KAMALBHAI SHARADBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2011-5-12] [REFERRED TO]
HARI OM OM PRAKASH CEMENT STOCKIST VS. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER [LAWS(ALL)-1992-4-49] [REFERRED]
ANURAG BANSAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-4-151] [REFERRED TO]
K O VENKATA REDDY VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(APH)-2001-4-30] [REFERRED TO]
DANDAPANI PATNAIK VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1961-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
NAROTTAMDAS HARJIWANDAS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1963-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
JOARA SUGAR MILLS PRIVATE VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1963-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
KANHAIYALAL THAKURDAS VS. GULAB BAI DIGAMBAR JAIN KANYA VIDHYALAYA [LAWS(MPH)-1964-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTIVE FARMING SOCIETY VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1973-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CALCUTTA VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR VS. CENTRAL MANBHUM COAL COMPANY PVT LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1983-8-10] [REFERRED TO]
K KUNHAMBU VS. REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES [LAWS(KER)-1969-2-10] [REFERRED TO]
COCHIN MALABAR ESTATE VS. EXECUTIVE OFFICER VARANTHARAPPILLY PANCHAYAT [LAWS(KER)-1974-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
LA SRI SIVA SHANMUGHA ARUMUGHA MEIJNANA SIVACHARIAR TIRNPAPULIYUR VS. S SUBRAMANIAN [LAWS(MAD)-1981-11-36] [REFERRED TO]
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. WORKMEN OF ITI LTD [LAWS(KAR)-1997-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDARABAI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1962-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH NARAYAN VS. COMMISSIONER NAGPUR DIVISION NAGPURAND [LAWS(BOM)-1964-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
ANANDA BHAVANANI ALIAS SWAMI GEETHANANDA ANANDA ASHRAM PONDICHERRY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-1990-12-61] [REFERRED TO]
BHEL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-2003-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
N J NAYADU VS. ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY OF NAGPUR [LAWS(BOM)-1968-6-5] [REFERRED TO]
ANKOLA URBAN CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED ANKOLA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2004-9-11] [REFERRED TO]
BANAHATTI CO OPERATIVE MILLS LIMITED JAMAKHANDI BAGALKOT DISTRICT VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2005-4-29] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. ARUN KUMAR MAITRA [LAWS(CAL)-2005-4-58] [REFERRED TO]
SIDDHESHWAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1983-4-19] [REFERRED TO]
A Varadharajan VS. State of Tamil Nadu [LAWS(MAD)-2003-12-134] [REFERRED TO]
SHANTHI SAROOP SHARMA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1968-5-8] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA KAPUR VS. UNIVERSITY OF JODHPUR JODHPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-1964-2-5] [REFERRED TO]
BHANWARLAL SOHANLAL VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-1965-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
HANSRAJ BAGRACHA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1969-1-17] [REFERRED TO]
DEHRI ROHTAS LIGHT RLY CO LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-1969-2-5] [REFERRED TO]
JINDAL STRIPS LTD VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2001-12-21] [REFERRED]
BHERU LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2000-2-43] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDER BHUSHAN ANAND VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2004-11-70] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAM PAL SINGH VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-1975-1-12] [REFERRED TO]
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS [LAWS(CHH)-2009-9-47] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRASEKHAR SINGH BHOI AND ORS. VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1967-1-21] [REFERRED TO]
UMRAO SINGH VS. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1969-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
MD. SARFUDDIN AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(PAT)-1984-4-42] [REFERRED TO]
SAT DEV VS. THE PUNJAB STATE ETC. [LAWS(P&H)-1971-8-53] [REFERRED TO]
IN RE VS. STATE [LAWS(ET)-2011-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
BHRAMARABAR DAS VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2012-3-14] [REFERRED TO]
SEHAJDHARI SIKH FEDERATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2011-12-23] [REFERRED TO]
BALAJI MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL VS. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2013-1-56] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP ALIAS SANDEEP MEHROTRA VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2011-12-181] [REFERRED TO]
V. J. JAYAKUMAR ABRAHAM VS. STATE [LAWS(KER)-1993-3-83] [REFERRED TO]
SCINDIA DEVESTHAN REGISTERED CHARITABLE TRUST VS. PRAVEEN KUMAR NIGAM [LAWS(MPH)-2013-7-144] [REFERRED TO]
STANDARD MOTOR UNION (PRIVATE) LTD., ETTUMANOOR VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1961-8-39] [REFERRED TO]
M/S HOLYSTAR NATURAL RESOURCES PVT. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-1-125] [REFERRED TO]
GODFREY PHILIPS INDIA LTD. VS. STATE OF M.P.(AND OTHER CASES). [LAWS(MPH)-2008-5-61] [REFERRED TO]
DECCAN CHRONICLES HOLDINGS LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2014-5-8] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. DECCAN CHRONICLES HOLDINGS LIMITED REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, R. GURUPRASAD ORS. ETC. ETC. VS. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CANARA BAN [LAWS(MAD)-2014-8-187] [REFERRED TO]
YOGESH JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) [LAWS(DLH)-2002-2-147] [REFERRED TO]
SYED HILAL AHAMD AND ORS. VS. STATE OF J & K AND ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2015-8-37] [REFERRED TO]
AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE UNJHA VS. CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER [LAWS(GJH)-2015-8-79] [REFERRED TO]
DR. ROMA SUR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1989-9-60] [REFERRED TO]
CONFEDERATION OF INDIAN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMPANIES VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2016-9-17] [REFERRED TO]
CHITTORI SWAMI VS. RAVULA SURYANARAYANA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(APH)-1969-11-18] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWAR PRASAD KISHAN GOPAL AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P., THROUGH THE SECRETARY EXCISE DEPARTMENT [LAWS(ALL)-1973-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
DARSHANLAL ANAND PRAKASH AND ANOTHER VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, SHILLONG, ASSAM AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-1974-3-39] [REFERRED TO]
JAGGU AND SIX OTHERS VS. ZILA PARISHAD GONDA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1980-8-64] [REFERRED TO]
HIMANGSHU KUMAR CHAKRABORTY VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1979-3-52] [REFERRED]
MAUD TEA & SEED COMPANY LTD VS. AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX OFFICER AND ORS [LAWS(GAU)-1968-2-16] [REFERRED]
POWER MACHINES INDIA LIMITED VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-4-67] [REFERRED TO]
U.P. ADVERTISERS ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT & 13 ORS VS. STATE OF U.P. & 2 ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-14] [REFERRED TO]
SAFARI FINE CLOTHING PVT.LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2016-8-251] [REFERRED TO]
M.K. GOVINDARAJULU CHETTY AND OTHERS VS. GOVT OF A.P. HYD. AND ANOTHERS [LAWS(APH)-1972-12-18] [REFERRED TO]
MARRAPU VENKATASWAMY VS. NADIPALLI RAMAMOHAN RAO [LAWS(APH)-1963-11-42] [REFERRED TO]
IMTIYAZ ALI KHAN VS. STATE OF JK [LAWS(J&K)-2019-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD MAQBOOL SHAH VS. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR [LAWS(J&K)-2019-11-31] [REFERRED TO]
GHULAM RASOOL BHAT VS. UNION TERRITORY OF JK [LAWS(J&K)-2019-12-21] [REFERRED TO]
FAROOQ AHMAD BAKSHI VS. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [LAWS(J&K)-2019-12-45] [REFERRED TO]
MUZAFFAR AHMAD MALIK VS. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR [LAWS(J&K)-2019-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD TAHIR KHAN VS. STATE OF J & K [LAWS(J&K)-2019-7-147] [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATES OF NCTE APPROVED COLLEGES TRUST VS. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION [LAWS(DLH)-2021-5-103] [REFERRED TO]
BASHARAT SALEEM PALOO VS. J&K HORTICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETING & PROCESSING CORPORATION [LAWS(J&K)-2021-4-78] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The appellants in these two appeals had filed two separate petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the Bombay High Court in which they had challenged the vires of S. 6(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (LXVII of 1948) (hereafter called the Act) and the validity of the notification issued by the Government of October 17, 1952, under the provisions of the said S. 6(2). It appears that on June 23, 1949, in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 6(2) of the Act the Government had issued a notification fixing
"in the case of an irrigated land 1/5 and in the case of any other land 1/4 of the crops of such land or its value as determined in the prescribed manner as the maximum rent payable by the tenants of the lands situate in the areas specified in the schedule appended thereto".

Amongst the areas thus specified was the area in which the appellants' lands are situated. Subsequently, on October 17, 1952, by virtue of the same powers and in supersession of all other earlier notifications issued in that behalf the Government purported to prescribe a rate as the lower rate of maximum rent at which the rent shall be payable by the tenants in respect of the lands situate in the areas specified in Schedule I appended to it. It is unnecessary to set out the rates thus prescribed; it would be enough to state that the rate of maximum rent prescribed by this notification is very much lower than the rate which had been fixed by the earlier one. By their petitions filed in the Bombay High Court the appellants contended that S. 6(2) was ultra vires, and that even if S. 6(2) was valid the impugned notification was invalid. Accordingly they prayed for a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate direction or order against the Government, the Mamlatdar of the area concerned and their respective tenants prohibiting them or any one of them from giving effect to the said notification. They also claimed a direction or order to the opponents directing them to cancel or withdraw the impugned notification. These two petitions were heard by the High Court along with other companion matters in which the same points were raised, and in the result the High Court dismissed the petitions. It held that S. 6(2) was intra vires and the impugned notification was legal and valid. The appellants then applied for and obtained a certificate from the High Court, and it is with the said certificate that they have come to this Court by their two appeals.

(2.)At the outset it may be relevant to state that, subsequent to t he decision under appeal, in 1956 the Act has been substantially amended and now S. 3 of the new Act provides for the rent and its maximum and minimum. Shortly stated this section incorporates the provisions of the impugned notification and adds to it the further provision that in no case shall the rent be less than twice the assessment. In consequence the point raised in the present appeals has ceased to be of any importance; at best it may affect just a few cases between landlords and tenants that may be pending in respect of the rent payable by the latter to the former for a period prior to 1956. At the time when the certificate was granted the questions raised by the appellants were undoubtedly of general importance.
(3.)We would first read S. 6 of the Act. Section 6(1) provides that notwithstanding any agreement, usage, decree or order of a court or any law the maximum rent payable by a tenant for the lease of any land shall not in the case of an irrigated land exceed one-fourth and in the case of any other land exceed one-third of the crop of such land or its value as determined in the prescribed manner. Section 6(2) provides that the Provincial Government may by notification in the official gazette fix a lower rate of the maximum rent payable by the tenants of lands situate in any particular area or may fix such rate on any other suitable basis as it thinks fit. For the appellants Mr. Limaye has contended that S. 6(2) suffers from the vice of excessive delegation. His argument is that the power delegated to the Provincial Government is unfettered and uncanalised and no guidance has been afforded to it for exercising the said power. He has also relied on the fact that while giving such wide powers to the delegate in fixing the lower rate of the maximum rent the Legislature has not prescribed any minimum as it should have done. The High Court has held that the delegation involved in S. 6(2) is within permissible limits and as such the challenge to the vires of the said provision cannot succeed.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.