Download Changing Dimension of Workman Under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and more Essays (university) Law in PDF only on Docsity!
12 TH^ INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021 [TABLE OF CONTENTS]
12 TH^ INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA
Before THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MANNA PRADESH [UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950] In the Matters of M/S LANDMUGHAL PVT. LTD.& ORS.………………………………….……. …… PETITIONERS V. STATE OF MANNA PRADESH ……………………………………... …………….....RESPONDENT AND MR. CHAGAN PEDDY & ORS………………………... ……………………………..PETITIONERS V. M/S LANDMUGHAL PVT. LTD. & ORS…………………………………………..RESPONDENTS 1 STATE OF MANNA PRADESH……………………………………………………RESPONDENTS 2 BROUGHT IN THE WRIT PETITIONS NO. W.P./2088/2019 & 2089/ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER P A G E | 1 Code: 134P
12 TH^ INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION [TABLE OF AUTHORITIES]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER P A G E | 2
12 TH^ INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021 [LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS]
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
¶ PARAGRAPH
§. SECTION
AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
Anr. ANOTHER Art. ARTICLE Etc. ET CETERA Gau LR GAUHATI LAW REPORTER Govt. GOVERNMENT i.e. THAT IS KLT KERELA LAW TIMES Ltd. LIMITED LW LAW WEEKLY Hon’ble HONOURABLE MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER P A G E | II
12 TH^ INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION [TABLE OF AUTHORITIES]
Ors. OTHERS QB QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION SC SUPREME COURT SCC SUPREME COURT CASES SCR SUPREME COURT REVIEWS Supp. SUPPLEMENTARY v. VERSUS MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER P A G E | III
- Accountant and Secretarial Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1988) 4 SCC 324---------- CASES
- Andhra Sugars Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. AIR 1968 SC 599-------------------
- Ashok Kumar v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 498-----------------------------------------------
- Att. Gen for Canada v. Att. Gen. for British Columbia, 1930 A.C. 111-------------------------
- Att. Gen. for Saskatchewan v. Att. Gen. for Canada, AIR 1949 P.C. 190-----------------------
- Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1982) 3 SCC 24------------------------------------------------
- Bharat Hydro Power Corpn. Ltd. v. State of Assam, (2004) 2 SCC 553------------------------
- Bondu Ramaswamy v. Bangalore Development Authority, (2010) 7 SCC 129----------------
- Brown Jenkinson & Co. v. Percy Dalton (London) Ltd., (1957) 2 QB 621---------------------
- D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab AIR 1971 SC 1731--------------------------------------------
- Darshan Lal Nagpal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2012) 2 SCC 327------------------------------
- East Coast Railway v. Mahadev Appa Rao, (2010) 7 SCC 678-----------------------------------
- Hari Singh v Military Estate Officer, AIR 1964 Punjab 304--------------------------------------
- Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 45-------------------------------
- Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (2000) 1 SCC 168----------------------------------------------
- ITC Ltd v. Agriculture Produce Market Committee (2002) 9 SCC 232-------------------------
- ITC Ltd. v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, (2002) 8 SCC 481-----------------------
- Jamshed N. Guzdar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 2 SCC 591---------------------------------
- K.T. Moopil Nair v. State of Kerela, (1961) 3 SCC 77--------------------------------------------
- Karnataka Bank Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCC 254----------------------------
- Lloyd Bank v. Bundy, (1975) 1 QB 726-------------------------------------------------------------
- M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, (1979) 3 SCC 431---------------------------------------------
- Mallalieu v. Hodgson, (1851) 16 QB 689------------------------------------------------------------
- Mathew v. Union of India, (2003) 1 KLT 437------------------------------------------------------
- Meghmala v. Reddy, (2010) 8 SCC 383-------------------------------------------------------------
- Nedungadi Bank v. Ezhimala Agrl Products, AIR 2004 Ker 62----------------------------------
- Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2005) 5 SCC 420----------------------------------------
- Raghunath Prasad Sahu v. Sarju Prasad Sahu, (1924) 19 LW 470-------------------------------
- Rajiv Sarin and Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., MANU/SC/0913/2011----------------
- Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana and Ors., (1985) 3 SCC 267-------------------
- RS Joshi v. Ajit Mills, Ahmedabad, (1977) 4 SCC 98---------------------------------------------
- Saiyada Mossarat v. Hindustan Steel Limited Bhilai, (1989) 1 SCC 272----------------------- 12 TH INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION [TABLE OF AUTHORITIES]
- SS Bola v. BD Sardana, (1997) 8 SCC 522----------------------------------------------------------
- Star Enterprises v. CIDC, (1990) 3 SCC 280--------------------------------------------------------
- State of Karnataka v. Union of India, (1977) 4 SCC 608------------------------------------------
- State of Kerela v. PUCL, (2003) 2 SCR 1136-------------------------------------------------------
- 3 SCC 571--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal, (2010)
- State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 1-----------------------------
- Thakur Amar Singhji v. State of Rajasthan, AIR (1952) SC 252---------------------------------
- Union of India & Anr. v. Raghunath Ram Choudhury & Ors. (2008) 1 Gau LR 500---------
- Union of India v. T. Dhananjay & Ors., MANU/SC/1411/2018----------------------------------
- Wajid Khan v. Raja Ewaz Ali Khan, (1891) 18 IA 44---------------------------------------------
- Zaverbhai Amaidas v. The state of Bombay, MANU/SC/0040/1954----------------------------
- Andhra Pradesh Decentralization and Inclusive Development of all Regions Act, 2020----- STATUTES
- Article 14, The Constitution of India-----------------------------------------------------------------
- Article 19, The Constitution of India-----------------------------------------------------------------
- Article 196(2),The Constitution of India-------------------------------------------------------------
- Article 197, TheConstitution of India----------------------------------------------------------------
- Article 200, Constitution of India---------------------------------------------------------------------
- Article 21, The Constitution of India-----------------------------------------------------------------
- Article 245, The Constitution of India----------------------------------------------------------------
- Article 246(1), The Constitution of India------------------------------------------------------------
- Article 246(4), The Constitution of India------------------------------------------------------------
- Article 254(1), The Constitution of India------------------------------------------------------------
- Article 256, The Constitution of India----------------------------------------------------------------
- Article 266, The Constitution of India----------------------------------------------------------------
- Article 275, The Constitution of India----------------------------------------------------------------
- Article 292, The Constitution of India----------------------------------------------------------------
- Article 293(3), The Constitution of India------------------------------------------------------------
- Article 299(1), The Constitution of India------------------------------------------------------------
- Article 300A, The Constitution of India--------------------------------------------------------------
- Section 10, The Indian Contract Act, 1872----------------------------------------------------------
12 TH^ INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION [TABLE OF AUTHORITIES]
Section 14, The Indian Contract Act, 1872---------------------------------------------------------- 22 Section 17, The Indian Contract Act, 1872---------------------------------------------------------- 23 Section 195, Companies Act, 2013------------------------------------------------------------------- 22 Section 30(1)(a), Section 31(2), Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014------------------- 16 Section 31(2), Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014----------------------------------------- 15 Section 415, Indian Penal Code, 1860---------------------------------------------------------------- 23 Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860---------------------------------------------------------------- 23 Section 5(ii), Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014------------------------------------------ 16 Section 55(5)(a), Transfer of Property Act, 1882--------------------------------------------------- 23 Section 9, Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014---------------------------------------------- 16 OTHER AUTHORITIES Werhane, P.H. The ethics of insider trading , J Bus Ethics vol. 8, p. 841–845 (1989)-------- 22 RULES Section 101, Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council, 2015.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19 BOOKS Avtar Singh, LAW OF CONTRACT AND SPECIFIC RELIEF, (12TH^ edition, 2018)-------- 24 MP Jain, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (8th^ Edition, 2019)----------------------------- 14 REPORTS Report of the Tenth Financial Committee, (1994)-------------------------------------------------- 18 Report of the Twelfth Financial Committee, (2004)------------------------------------------------ 18 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER P A G E | VI
12 TH^ INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION [STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION]
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Background of the case-: The State of Manna Pradesh, which consists majorly of people belonging to Modava Tribe was separated from existing state of Ma-Nadu due to many cultural and other reasons via Manna Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014 enacted and passed by the Parliament of Kailasha. Subsequent to this, according to the report of the Expert Committee ‘Naravati’ was declared as to be the capital of the new State of Manna Pradesh, which was also the popular choice of the people of that state. Meanwhile one of the ministers of the government has a business concern of his wife named M/s Landmughal Pvt. Ltd. on 27.09.2014 brought 88 acres of land abutting the river front of river Meghna, where the capital of Naravati was situated. Since 2015, State Government had invested more than KNR 60 Thousand Crores for development of Naravati. Im the same year a Writ Petition No. 11064 of 2018 was filed for bifurcation of High Court which was duly notified by the President of Kailasha on 01.11.2018 and presently, the High Court is situated in a makeshift building in Naravati. Turn of events leading to the present petitions-: Due to the sudden death of Mr. Mahendra Kaidu, taking the opportunity the opposition Leader Mr. Magan Peddy won the elections and started working on its ambition to have three decentralized capitals and for the same purpose started working on the same purpose. The committee could not afford any hearing, a writ petition no. 204 of 2019 was filed against Government of Manna Pradesh for the same. Accordingly, a website portal was launched and a report in the Annexure 4 was produced, which after an RTI Application was found to have been an erroneous report out of which no proper answer could be derived. On 01.07.2019, the Legislative Assembly of the State of Manna Pradesh passed the decentralization act which was then sent to the Legislative Council which referred it to a ‘Select Committee’ for which the Secretary of the Council refused to constitute one, against which the Chairman of the Council has filed a complaint to the Governor. While all this was in consideration The Legislative Assembly on 01.11.2019 reintroduced the bill in the Legislative Council where the members of the council adopted a resolution that the bill had not ought to have been reintroduced in the council. Following on 31.12.2019, the bill received the assent of the Governor and became an act in force. Parallelly, the government had instituted a Special Investigation Team under the supervision of home minister, Mr. Subba Peddy. The reference for the aforesaid SIT was to see whether MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER P A G E | 8
12 TH^ INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION [TABLE OF AUTHORITIES]
there was any illegality committed in the acquisitions/land pooling in and around ‘Naravati’. The excerpts of SIT report are provided as ANNEXURE 6. Following such events the present matters are brought before the Hon’ble High Court-:
- W.P. NO. 2088 OF 2019- Brought by M/s Landmughal and Ors. for declaring the De-centralization Act unconstitutional.
- W.P. NO. 2089 OF 2020- Brought by Mr. Chagan Peddy along with some farmers against the contracts entered between the farmers and the landgrabbers to be declared void and rescinded back to what it was. The matter pertaining to these facts are here forth presented before the Hon’ble High Court of Manna Pradesh. MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER P A G E | 9
12 TH^ INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION [STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION]
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Issue 1: THE MANNA PRADESH DECENTRALIZATION ACT, 2014 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL The subjects exercised in the act are violative of Article 245 and 246 for exercising matter out of the purview of the subjects under its power to legislate. The act also violates provisions of Article 254 and 256 of the Constitution of India for violating many provisions of the Manna Pradesh Re-organization Act, 2014 which was enacted by the parliament. The act exercises for more borrowing without the approval of the Central Government and exercises the Contractual Powers without the approval of the Central Government and thus acts against the Right to property of the citizens of State of Manna Pradesh. The act also has been passed in wrongful manner and neither the act was referred for the assent of the President and is tested for doctrines where the legislature and the act fall incompetent to be passed. Morover, it is derogatory of the Fundamental Rights of the people of Manna Pradesh and the de-centralization model also goes against the will of the people of the state. Issue 2: THE CONTRACTS MADE WITH THE FARMERS ARE ILLEGAL AND MUST BE RESCINDED The contracts were made on the basis of insider trading and there was a concealment of essential facts to the contracts which led to less bargaining power of the petitioners and the contracts were made in unconsciousness where the facts were deceived and amounted to fraud. There was no equal footing for both parties and the responded by unfair means have used unfair and illegal methods for their personal gain which goes against the petitioners. MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER P A G E | 11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1: THE MANNA PRADESH DECENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNANCE
AND INCLUSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF ALL REGIONS ACT, 2019 IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The present petition is brought before the Hon’ble High Court of Manna Pradesh by M/s Landmughal and Ors. ( hereon referred to as petitioner ) for The Manna Pradesh Decentralization of Governance and Inclusive Development of all Regions Act, 2014^1 ( hereon referred as Decentralization Act ) being unconstitutional for being against the provisions and procedure established by the Constitution (I) and has been passed wrongfully and the passing is against the procedure given in the Constitution. (II) The act in itself is violative of people’s fundamental rights and goes against their will. (III) I. THE DECENTRALIZATION IS AGAINST THE PROVISIONS AND PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED IN THE CONSTITUTION It is submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that the Decentralization Act is against the provisions and procedure established by law as its provisions are made out of the subjects on which Union have the power and discretion to decide because (A) it violates the provisions established by the union under the acts and those provisions shall prevail. (B) The acts financial aspect goes out of the context increasing the borrowing (C) and the it does not have the contractual rights and goes against the right to property of the civilians. (D) A. THE PROVISIONS OF SUBJECTS COME UNDER UNION’S POWER AND THE STATE CANNOT LEGISLATE ON THE SAME. The laws made by the parliament are applicable to the whole of the territory of the country^2 and the parliament has the power to make laws with respect to any matter for any part of the territory^3 and Constitution is kept to be the machinery by which laws are made^4 which provides for secure a strong centre having adequate powers both in extent and nature so that it can maintain and protect the integrity of the country.^5 Article 246 specifies that centre has the (^1) Andhra Pradesh Decentralization and Inclusive Development of all Regions Act, 2020. (^2) Article 245, The Constitution of India. (^3) Article 246(4), The Constitution of India. (^4) ITC Ltd. v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, (2002) 8 SCC 481. (^5) State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal, (2010) 3 SCC 571.
12 TH^ INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION [TABLE OF AUTHORITIES]
Educational Institutes are important branches of learning which fall under Entry 25 of List III^14 and part of the concurrent list and no state has legislative competence to act upon the manner for educational institutes^15 and thus the legislations regarding educational institutes vest with the union. The entries in the lists give outline of the subject matter of legislation and should be given widest amplitude^16 and thus the decentralization act has violated its subject matters and has legislated in the matters of the union. Therefore, the clauses of the act lie beyond the state’s legislative powers and unconstitutional. B. THE DECENTRALIZATION ACT VIOLATES THE PROVISIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE UNION UNDER THE ACTS AND THOSE PROVISIONS SHALL PREVAIL It is submitted that Manna Pradesh Re-organization Act, 2014 was an act enacted by the parliament and the Decentralization Act, 2019 provides for provisions which go against the same. Article 254 provides in clear terms that if the provisions of state law is repugnant to the union law with respect to the subject matters of the list, the parliament law shall prevail.^17 State is not just a geographical identity but a legal entity^18 and must exercise its executive power to be in compliance with the laws made by parliament.^19 The present Decentralization Act has exercised the subjects of concurrent list and the subjects of List 1 and also are found repugnant to provisions established in the Reorganization Act,
- It is submitted that in cases where repugnancy due to overlapping found between the List 2 and List 3 on the other, the state law will be ultra vires and shall have to give way to the Union Law.^20 Furthermore, the Decentralization Act,2019 is repugnant to the reorganization act in the following provisions-: a) Relocation of High Court is against the Provisions of Reorganization Act and is out of the state’s power to legislate The Reorganization Act, 2014 provides that the principal seat of the High Court shall be at such place as the President may, by notified order, appoint^21 and was duly made at Naravati by the notification of bifurcation by the President^22 exercising his power under section 30 and 31 of the Reorganization Act, 2014^23 and analysing the power under Article 214 for the (^14) Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2005) 5 SCC 420. (^15) D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab AIR 1971 SC 1731. (^16) Karnataka Bank Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCC 254. (^17) Article 254(1), The Constitution of India. (^18) State of Karnataka v. Union of India, (1977) 4 SCC 608. (^19) Article 256, The Constitution of India. (^20) State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 1. (^21) Section 31(2), Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014. (^22) Moot Proposition, p. 4 para 1. (^23) Section 30(1)(a), Section 31(2), Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014. MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER P A G E | 14
12 TH^ INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION [TABLE OF AUTHORITIES]
allocation of High Court.^24 The present act provides for shifting the seat of the High Court at Jurnool without the assent of the president^25 and thus, is against the provisions of the Reorganization Act, 2014 enacted by the parliament. Morover, it is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, under Entry 11A the State Legislature has no power to High Courts. It is an accepted principle of construction of a Constitution that everything necessary for the exercise of powers is included in the grant of power^26 while Entries 77-79 and 95 confer power on the Centre to make laws with respect to the Supreme Court and the High Courts. Therefore, the re-location of High Court is in violation of the Parliamentary Law and the President’s Order and is out the subject matter of the state to be legislated upon. b) There cannot be more than one capital of the state The Section 5(ii)^27 of the Re-organization Act, 2014 in its wordings clearly provide that “there shall be a capital of the state” and in its literal meaning means that there shall only be one capital while the Decentralization Act, 2019 specifies for three capitals which goes against the law for number of capitals for the state and goes against the provisions of the union law. Therefore, in the present case, the three capitals are not in accordance with the Re- organization Act, 2014. c) No expert committee was appointed before assigning the capital Section 6 of the Reorganization Act, 2014 provides that before the appointment of a new capital an expert committee needs to be appointed for reviewing the same^28 and such committee shall be appointed by the Central Government for the same purpose.^29 In the present case, no committee was appointed before the passing of such act and neither was the central government consulted for the same.^30 Therefore, the non-appointment of a expert committee has violated the clauses of the law enacted by the parliament. The clauses of the Decentralization Act, 2019 enacted by the State of Manna Pradesh are repugnant to the clauses of Manna Pradesh Re-organization Act, 2014 which was enacted by the parliament. In State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd.^31 , it was held that if there is a repugnancy due to overlapping found between the List 2 and List 3 on the other, the (^24) Union of India v. T. Dhananjay & Ors., MANU/SC/1411/2018. (^25) Supra note 7, Section 5(iv). (^26) Jamshed N. Guzdar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 2 SCC 591. (^27) Section 5(ii), Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014. (^28) Moot Proposition, p. 3. (^29) Section 9, Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014. (^30) Moot Proposition, p. 4 para 5. (^31) Supra, note 20. MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER P A G E | 15
12 TH^ INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION [TABLE OF AUTHORITIES]
the abovementioned articles^42. The present Decentralization act goes out of the matters described in its subject list and violates the borrowing procedure established by the constitution. The petitioner humbly submits that it will increase state indebtedness and will cause more debt^43 while the state has to work for eliminating the revenue deficit.^44 Therefore, the state cannot raise loans without the Union’s consent and the economic powers of the state stand out of their subject and unconstitutional and no extra money can be raised for the purpose of decreasing the revenue deficit. D. THE STATE DOES NOT HAVE THE CONTRACTUAL POWERS FOR LAND- POOLING AND THUS VIOLATES THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY OF THE CIVILIANS The section 5(d) and 5(e) of the Decentralization Act, 2019 provides for land-pooling which comes under the legislation of state and the same was submitted in the earlier submissions and such legislation is to be done by contractual power of the which shall be signed by the president and not the Governor for the repugnancy of the act.^45 The state has provided for the lands to vest under NMRDA and does not specify for President’s Contractual power for dealing with the same. The state acting in such commercial field must act in consonance of the rule of law.^46 Thus, the contracts that shall be entered within the land-pooling scheme shall be not be valid for not following the procedure of Article 299 of the Constitution.^47 Additionally, the act so passed provides for two new capitals and shifting of administrative offices which shall require more land and would be depriving many civilians of their property which goes against the Article 300A which grants for their right to property.^48 The provision and subject being out the state subject and it will be illegal and forcible eviction of the people out of their land, which is not permissible.^49 Compulsory acquisition of land is a serious matter and shall be exercised with great care and circumspection^50 and it is needed to remind that the authorities exist to serve the people and not versa^51. Therefore, the Act cannot acquire more land and the same will be against the property rights of the civilians. (^42) Mathew v. Union of India, (2003) 1 KLT 437. (^43) Report of the Tenth Financial Committee, (1994). (^44) Report of the Twelfth Financial Committee, (2004). (^45) Article 299(1), The Constitution of India. (^46) Star Enterprises v. CIDC, (1990) 3 SCC 280. (^47) Union of India & Anr. v. Raghunath Ram Choudhury & Ors. (2008) 1 Gau LR 500, p. 502. (^48) Article 300A, The Constitution of India. (^49) Meghmala v. Reddy, (2010) 8 SCC 383. (^50) Darshan Lal Nagpal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2012) 2 SCC 327. (^51) Bondu Ramaswamy v. Bangalore Development Authority, (2010) 7 SCC 129. MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER P A G E | 17
12 TH^ INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION [TABLE OF AUTHORITIES]
II. THE ACT HAS BEEN PASSED WRONGFULLY AND IS AGAINST THE PROCEDURE
ESTABLISHED BY THE CONSTITUTION.
The State of Manna Pradesh follows a bi-cameral legislation which provides for a legislative assembly and a legislative council. The procedure establishes that if a bill is passed by a legislative assembly and not passed by the legislative council, then there are revisions and when the bill is sent to the council again, even if the council disagrees and the assembly passes it, the bill can be passed.^52 It is humbly submitted that the process of passing the act was not followed as the bill was referred to a Select Committee as per the council rules^53 for consideration on the Decentralization Bill, 2019 on 02.02.2019. It is submitted that the secretary of council disobeyed such directions against which the Chairman of the Council had filed a complaint^54 and on 01.11.2019 he bills were re- introduced in the council which were assented by the Governor on 31.12.2019. It is humbly submitted that when the bill was re-introduced in the council, it was the same bill without any amendments, which was already in consideration with the Legislative Council. The act was not supposed to have been introduced and hence, did not come under the criteria of rejection. Therefore, the passed act was never considered in the Legislative Council and thus shall not be deemed to have been passed by both the houses under Article 197 of the Constitution. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that the act was passed wrongfully due to three reasons- The act should have been referred for Presidential Assent (A) the Rule of Pith and Substance (B) and Colorable Legislation (C) is to be looked upon. A. THE BILL SHOULD HAVE BEEN REFERRED FOR PRESIDENTIAL ASSENT It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that the Governor had assented to the Decentralization Act, 2019 on 31.12.2019 exercising its power under Article 200 which lays down the procedure to be followed when the bill has been passed by Legislative Assembly or Council^55 and provides that the bill shall be reserved for the assent of the president in case it endangers the position of High Court which it is constitutionally designed to fulfill.^56 In previous submissions it was submitted that the present act cannot legislate with regarding to High Court and assenting the same by the Governor endangers its position established in the at enacted by the parliament. The High Court is a subject matter of the Union List and in terms of Article 254 Presidential Assent is necessary if the state act is in conflict with the (^52) Article 196(2),The Constitution of India; Article 197, TheConstitution of India. (^53) Section 101, Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council, 2015. (^54) Moot Proposition, p. 5 para 3. (^55) Thakur Amar Singhji v. State of Rajasthan, AIR (1952) SC 252. (^56) Article 200, Constitution of India. MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER P A G E | 18
