M. Katju J. - (1.) THE petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Ordinance 2002 (U.P. Ordinance no. 19 of 2002) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) COPY of the impugned Ordinance is Annexure 5 to the writ petition and we have carefully perused the same. It may be stated that an Ordinance is on the same legal footing as an Act of the legislature vide Article 213 (2) of the Constitution Hence unless it is shown that it is violative of some provision of the Constitution, it cannot be struck down. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy us that the impugned ordinance violated any provision of the Constitution. There is a presumption in favour of constitutional validity of an Act. In H.C. Misra Vs State of U.P. C.M. Writ Petition No. 1025 of 2001 (tax) decided on 10.9.2002 the imposition of additional tax has been upheld. In H.C. Misra's case (Supra) it was observed by the Division Bench: "As a matter of fact even if it be assumed that the tax liability under the new Act has increased that by itself would be no ground to hold that the legislation has lost its regulatory and compensatory character."
(3.) WE are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid division Bench decision. There is legislative competence in the Governor of the State to promulgate the impugned Ordinance under Entries 56 and 57 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. We find no unconstitutionality in the impugned Ordinance. The petition is dismissed.;