Case: Gujarat State Transport Corporation, Etc Vs. Valji Mulji Soneji and Others

issued perior to the commencement of the Ordinance hereinabove noted on 20th January 1967 any notification which is required to be issued under s. 6 must be made within a period of two years whereafter as a necessary corollary all s. 4 notifications issued prior to 20th January 1967 would stand exhausted and would not provide either a source or reservoir for issuing s. 6 notification. Consequently the mischief sought to be set at naught by the High Court by reading by necessary implication in the scheme of ss. 4, 5A and 6 the concept of exercise of statutory power within a reasonable time has been statutorily remedied. The apprehensions of the High Court that if not checkmated by implying that such statutory power must be exercised within a reasonable time to curb arbitrary exercise of power to the detriment of a citizen have been taken note of by the legislature and fully met. Absence of any decided case on the subject of which High Court took note cou ld not permit an inference as has been done by the High Court that in the absence of a decided case the legislature would not remedy the possible mischief. Legislature often does take note of a possible abuse of power by the executive and proceed to nip it in the bud by appropriate legislation and that has been done in this case. There is now no more possibility of a gap of more than three years between s. 4 and s. 6 notifications because any declaration made after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which s. 4 notification is issued would be invalid as being beyond the prescribed period.These newly inserted provisions were brought to the notice of the High Court. Now, as pointed out earlier, the Ordinance came into force on 20th January 1967. The notification under s. 4 in this case was prior to the commencement of the Ordinance. Therefore, the provision contained in sub-s. (2) s. 4 of the 1967 Amendment Act would be directly attracted. The Government could, therefore make a declaration within a period of two years from 20th January 1967. The Government has in fact issued the impugned notification under s. 6 on 10th October 1967, i.e. within the period prescribed by the statute. 8. The question then is: when a statute confers power and prescribes time within which it can be exercised, could it ever be said that even though the power is exercised within the statutory period yet the Court can examine the question of delay and record a finding that there was an unreasonable delay in exercise of the power and, therefore, the exercise of power is bad ? This approach would defeat the very purpose for prescribing a sort of a period of limitation on exercise of power. When a period is prescribed for exercise of power it manifests the legislative intention that the authority exercising the power within the prescribed time could not at least be accused of inaction or dithering and, therefore, such exercise of power could not be said to be bad or invalid on the only ground that there was unreasonable delay in the exercise of the power. The very prescription of time in heres a belief that the nature and quantum of power and the manner in which it is to b e exercised would consume at least that much time which the statute prescribes as reasonable and, therefore, exercise of power within that time could not be negatived on the only ground of unreasonable delay. Therefore, in this case it is difficult to agree with the High Court that there was an unreasonable delay in exercise of power and hence the exercise was either bad or invalid.The High Court by implication read a fetter on the power of the Government to issue s. 6 notification withi n a reasonable time after the issue of s. 4 notification after observing that there was no express provision that such power ought to be exercised within a reasonable time. In raising this implication the High Court took into account the postulate that every statutory power must be exercised reasonably and a reasonable exercise of power implies its exercise within a reasonable time. Coupled with it two other factors were taken into consideration such as the effect of issuing a s. 4 notification on the rights and obligations of the owner of the land whose land is proposed to be acquired; the right of the Government to unilaterally cancel s. 4 notification in the event of falling prices; history of legislation; and delayed issue of s. 6 notification would deny adequate compensation to the owner. But by the time the High Court examined this matter the legislature had already introduced a provision by which the power to issue s. 6 notification was to be exercised within the prescribed period of time. At that stage there hardly arose a question of a search of the fetter on the power of the Government ignoring to some extent the express statutory provision. Therefore, while appreciating the anxiety of the High Court we are of the opinion that once the legislature stepped in and prescribed a sort of period of limitation within which power to issue notification under s. 6 could be exercised it was not necessary to go in search of a further fetter on the power o f the Government by raising the implication. 9. It thus appears to be satisfactorily established that the impugned s. 6 notification was issued within the prescribed period introduced by the 1967 Amendment Act and, therefore, could not be struck down on the only ground that the power to issue second s. 6 notification was exercised after an unreasonable and unexplained delay. This being the only infirmity found by the High Court to which we are not able to subscribe, it must be held t hat the second s. 6 notification dated 10th October 1967 is valid and legal.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]A combined reading of the provisions contained in sub-s. (2) of s. 4 with the one contained in the proviso to sub-s. (1) of s. 6 introduced by the Amendment Act would clearly put an end to the unsatisfactory situation which troubled the High Court in this case. In view of the statutory provision noticed herein the Government would be precluded fr om making a declaration under s. 6 after the expiry of a period of three years from the date of the issue of a notification under s. 4 which may be issued after the Amendment Act came into force. And in respect of those s. 4 notifications which we re issued perior to the commencement of the Ordinance hereinabove noted on 20th January 1967 any notification which is required to be issued under s. 6 must be made within a period of two years whereafter as a necessary corollary all s. 4 notifications issued prior to 20th January 1967 would stand exhausted and would not provide either a source or reservoir for issuing s. 6 notification. Consequently the mischief sought to be set at naught by the High Court by reading by necessary implication in the scheme of ss. 4, 5A and 6 the concept of exercise of statutory power within a reasonable time has been statutorily remedied. The apprehensions of the High Court that if not checkmated by implying that such statutory power must be exercised within a reasonable time to curb arbitrary exercise of power to the detriment of a citizen have been taken note of by the legislature and fully met. Absence of any decided case on the subject of which High Court took note cou ld not permit an inference as has been done by the High Court that in the absence of a decided case the legislature would not remedy the possible mischief. Legislature often does take note of a possible abuse of power by the executive and proceed to nip it in the bud by appropriate legislation and that has been done in this case. There is now no more possibility of a gap of more than three years between s. 4 and s. 6 notifications because any declaration made after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which s. 4 notification is issued would be invalid as being beyond the prescribed period.These newly inserted provisions were brought to the notice of the High Court. Now, as pointed out earlier, the Ordinance came into force on 20th January 1967. The notification under s. 4 in this case was prior to the commencement of the Ordinance. Therefore, the provision contained in sub-s. (2) s. 4 of the 1967 Amendment Act would be directly attracted. The Government could, therefore make a declaration within a period of two years from 20th January 1967. The Government has in fact issued the impugned notification under s. 6 on 10th October 1967, i.e. within the period prescribed by the statuteTherefore, in this case it is difficult to agree with the High Court that there was an unreasonable delay in exercise of power and hence the exercise was either bad or invalid.The High Court by implication read a fetter on the power of the Government to issue s. 6 notification withi n a reasonable time after the issue of s. 4 notification after observing that there was no express provision that such power ought to be exercised within a reasonable time. In raising this implication the High Court took into account the postulate that every statutory power must be exercised reasonably and a reasonable exercise of power implies its exercise within a reasonable time. Coupled with it two other factors were taken into consideration such as the effect of issuing a s. 4 notification on the rights and obligations of the owner of the land whose land is proposed to be acquired; the right of the Government to unilaterally cancel s. 4 notification in the event of falling prices; history of legislation; and delayed issue of s. 6 notification would deny adequate compensation to the owner. But by the time the High Court examined this matter the legislature had already introduced a provision by which the power to issue s. 6 notification was to be exercised within the prescribed period of time. At that stage there hardly arose a question of a search of the fetter on the power of the Government ignoring to some extent the express statutory provision. Therefore, while appreciating the anxiety of the High Court we are of the opinion that once the legislature stepped in and prescribed a sort of period of limitation within which power to issue notification under s. 6 could be exercised it was not necessary to go in search of a further fetter on the power o f the Government by raising the implicationIt thus appears to be satisfactorily established that the impugned s. 6 notification was issued within the prescribed period introduced by the 1967 Amendment Act and, therefore, could not be struck down on the only ground that the power to issue second s. 6 notification was exercised after an unreasonable and unexplained delay. This being the only infirmity found by the High Court to which we are not able to subscribe, it must be held t hat the second s. 6 notification dated 10th October 1967 is valid and legal.