AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Deepak Gupta, J.—A short question arises in this appeal. The appellant herein filed a writ petition claiming some relief under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The learned Single Judge held that the writ petition does not survive since the said Act had been repealed on 5.9.2005 and there is no saving clause in the repealing Act.
Shri I.D. Bali, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and has also not taken into consideration the earlier judgment dated 17.11.2006 delivered by the then Chief Justice of this Court in CMPMO No. 148 of 2006.
In case, an Act is repealed and there is no specific provision made in the said Act with regard to various things which are mentioned in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, then it is Section 6, which will hold the field. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, reads as follows:-
Effect of repeal. - Where this Act, or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not -
(a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or
(b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or
(c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or
(d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or
(e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid;
and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed.
A bare reading of the provisions of Section 6 clearly shows that if an Act, especially a Central Act is repealed, and the repealing Act does not contain any specific provision to the contrary, then the repealing shall not in terms of Clause (e) of Section 6 affect any legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege available under the Act and further provides that such legal proceedings may be instituted continued and enforced as if the repealing Act had not been passed.
This question is no longer res intergra and the then Chief Justice of this Court in CMPMO No. 148 of 2006 titled Jagtar Singh Vs. The Chief Settlement Commissioner and Others, decided on 17.11.2006, held as follows:-
Apparently, the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) was not aware of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (Central Act No. 10 of 1897) which very clearly stipulates and lays down that despite repeal of any Central Act, such repeal shall not affect the previous operation of any enactment repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder nor such appeal shall affect any right acquired etc. under the repealed enactment etc. etc. Clause (e) of Section 6 also clearly lays down that the repeal shall not affect any legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any right, privilege etc. which might have accrued under the repealed enactment. Such being the clear position of law, the revision petition filed by the petitioner did not merit disposal on the aforesaid technical ground. The order thus suffers from a patent error of law apparent on the face of the order and is liable to be set aside.
We are not in total agreement with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. However, it appears that when the matter was argued before the learned Single Judge neither this judgment was produced nor the provisions of Section 6 were brought to his notice. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Since the learned Single Judge has not decided the case on merit, the matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge for disposal of the writ petition in accordance with law.