- (1.) THE petitioner in this Article 226 petition dated March 29, 2011 is seeking the following reliefs: (i) a mandamus commanding the respondents to revoke the notification, if any, under which the City Civil Court is to transfer ejectment suits to the Small Cause Court; (ii) an order declaring the amendment of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 as ultra vires the Constitution; and (iii) an order declaring the amendment of the City Civil Court Act, 1953 published under Notification No. 2474-L dated October 25, 1999 as ultra vires the Constitution.
(2.) MR. Ram appearing for the petitioner has argued that. Both the City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 1999 and the Presidency Small Cause Courts (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1999 were published under the impugned notifications, though the requisite Bills were never introduced in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly and the Governor and the President, the respective authorities, did not assent to the Bills passed by the legislature. He has contended that though the Legislative Assembly was competent to amend the City Civil Court Act, 1953, the amendment in question having not been made according to the legislative procedure has no force of law. His argument is that without amending the provisions of section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the Legislative Assembly could not confer power on the City Civil Court to entertain an appeal arising out of a suit for the recovery of possession of any premises under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956; and that in view of the provisions of the Letters Patent only the High Court was competent to amend the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882.
(3.) MR. Razack, Additional Solicitor-General of India, has submitted that he does not find any reason to say that the West Bengal Legislative Assembly was not competent to amend the City Civil Court Act, 1953 and the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. According to him, in view of the provisions of Entry 65 of List II of Schedule VII to the Constitution of India, the State Legislature was competent to amend both the Acts. Mr. Roy, Advocate-General for the State of West Bengal, has submitted that it is not known on what basis counsel for the petitioner has argued that without introducing the requisite Bills the two Amendment Acts were published under the notifications in question, for both the Bills were duly introduced in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly and after the legislature passed the Bills, the Governor and the President assented to them.;