IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Writ Petition No. 18334 of 2008 Between: Seelam Prasada Rao Resident of Secunderabad ... PETITIONER AND The Union of India., rep. by Parliament, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi-110011 ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to suspend the operation of the proceedings of the Reserve Bank of India (Amendment) Act, 2006 without rights conferred under part III of Constitution, enacted by Parliament the respondent to the "The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 in contravention of Article 13(2) pending the disposal of the above writ petition and after adjudication of the rights conferred under Articles 12,13,14,16 ,32,and 226 for denial taken away or abridging "State" rights to equality or the equal protection of the Laws vide "The Reserve Bank of India (Amendment) Act, 2006 in contravention of Article 13(2) and under the authority of the Article 13(2) declare the above impugned (Amendment) Act, 2006 as void by order of mandamus for amending the Reserve Bank of India Act,1934 which was not enacted by Indian Parliament and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon’ble court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case as the petitioner and the people of India properties are devised an securities against issue of currency in respect of the Budgets illegally and it is an oﬀence committed by parliament under Section 120-A of Indian Penal Code. Counsel for the Petitioner: PARTY-IN-PERSON Counsel for the Respondent: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following: Order: (Per Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) 1. By virtue of this public interest litigation, the petitioner, who has appeared as party-in-person, has challenged the validity of the Reserve Bank of India (Amendment) Act, 2006 (for short, ‘the Amendment Act’). 2. The petitioner has mainly submitted that Reserve Bank of India Act (for short, ‘the Act’) was enacted in 1934 i.e. before India became independent. According to him, the Act, which had been enacted before independence, is unconstitutional and, therefore, any amendment made to the Act would also be unconstitutional. He has, however, fairly submitted that according to Article 13 of the Constitution of India, all Acts which had been enacted before India became independent ought to have been given sanction by the Parliament, but in the instant case Parliament has not given any sanction to the Act and, therefore, the Act itself is unconstitutional. 3. Thereafter, it has been submitted by him that by virtue of the amendment to the Act, India will have to pay Rs.43/- for one dollar and, in fact, India should not pay more than Re.1/- for one dollar and because of the amendment to the Act, things have become expensive in the country. He has also taken us to the provisions of Article 32 and some other articles of the Constitution of India. 4. Upon hearing the petitioner, we do not ﬁnd any substance in the petition, which is in the nature of public interest litigation. In our opinion, it is not necessary that each and every Act, which had been enacted before India became independent, should be individually approved by the Parliament, as interpreted by the petitioner. The petition is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ August 22, 2008 VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J svs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}