AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—This review petition is in respect of the order dated September 17, 2008 passed in W.P. No. 19802 of 2007 see page 81 supra which was disposed of along with another petition.
The main ground for seeking review is that the court has not examined the validity of the impugned legislation in the context of the very terminology employed to attack validity of the provisions, namely, that the provision is an arbitrary provision; that there is no reference to this ground in the order. On such premise the petitioner has sought for reviewing the order.
Submission of Sri Dhananjay, learned Counsel appearing for the review petitioner, is that the main ground of attack on the validity of the legislation was that the uneven distribution of tax burden under the impugned legislation resulted in arbitrariness. The impact of the legislation was one resulting in discrimination and therefore it was an arbitrary provision of law and therefore this aspect needs to be examined, as it has not been done.
The writ petition is examined on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Arbitrariness, if at all, is a part of Article 14 and is not to be examined independently.
A writ petition involving the validity of the legislation is always examined on the touchstone of the constitutional provisions. The use of words or terminology are not material but testing the legislation with reference to Article 14 which indicates discrimination is material. Arbitrariness is one part of discrimination and as understood by the courts and even by the Supreme Court, reference to arbitrariness is made part of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Questions raised in the petitions have been examined and this aspect has been kept in mind while disposing of the writ petition.
It is open to the petitioners to avail of such other remedies available to them, if they are still aggrieved. This review petition is dismissed.