- (1.) Was the High Court of Gujarat justified in striking down the expression "or an order reducing his debt is made" used in sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 14 of the Gujarat Rural Debtors' Relief Act, 1976 - "the Act" on the ground that it is ultra vires Art. 19(l)(f) and Art. 19(l)(g) of the Constitution by its judgment in Vora Saiyedbhai Kadarbhai v. Saiyed Intajam Hussen Sedumiya & Ors., AIR 1981 Guj. 154 : (1981 GLR 596), is the only question which arises for our consideration and decision in these Civil Appeals, by special leave since the special leave in them is granted by this Court confined to that question.
(2.) The striking down of the said expression in sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 14 of the Act as unconstitutional by the High Court, enables a creditor to retain the property pledged or mortgaged with him by the debtor as secruity for his debt where such debt is merely scaled down and not fully wiped off, under the provision of the Act. But, the said expression, if had not been struck down by the High Court, a property pledged or mortgaged with the creditor as security by the debtor for his debt, would have stood released from the security and returned by the creditor to the debtor forthwith, notwithstanding the fact that the debt payable by the debtor to the creditor stood merely scaled down or reduced and did not stand fully discharged or wiped off, as becomes obvious from a reading of sub-sec.(2) of Sec. 14 of the Act, which runs thus : "S. 14 (1) ............. (2) Where a certificate of discharge of any debt is granted to a debtor or an order reducing his debt is made under Sec. 8, every property pledged or mortgaged by such debtor as a security of such debt shall stand released in favour of such debtor and the creditor shall forthwith return such property to the debtor." (underlining is ours)
(3.) No doubt, the Act where the above sub-section finds its place, was, as a whole, challenged before the High Court, as that which was ultra vires the Constitution. However, the High Court, as seen from its judgment adverted to at the outset, relying upon the judgments of the Constitution Benches of this Court in Fatehchand Himmatlal v. State of Maharashtra, 1977 (2) SCC 670, and Pathumma and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 1978 (2) SCC 1, where Debtors Relief Acts similar to the Act had been found to be constitutional, upheld the constitutionality of the Act, as such, but for its view that the aforesaid expression in sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 14 of the Act, was ultra vires Arts. 19(l)(f) and 19(l)(g) of the Constitution and of striking down the same as stated earlier.;