Case: State of Haryana Vs. United Riceland (P.) Ltd

3. The opinion rendered by the High Court in the impugned order succinctly sum up the issue in the following terms:

Court's reasoning:
4. We do not see how in the light of what was effected by the amendment made in the year 2003, the view taken by the High court that the lacuna in the Act which had led to the decision in Satnam Overseas (supra) can be understood to have been rectified by the amendment so as to confer legitimacy to the same, can be faulted with. On the aforesaid basis, the High Court construed the amendment and the actions thereunder to be an attempt to overcome the decision of this Court in Satnam Overseas (supra). Having considered the ratio of the decision laid down in Satnam Overseas (supra), as discussed above, and the purport and effect of the 2003 Amendment we do not see the said view can be faulted6. We do not find any substance in the said contention advance inasmuch as by the Amendment it is only the first Part of Section 2(p) which has been amended with effect from 27th May, 1971 leaving the Explanations untouched. That apart, the contention now advanced by the learned ASG in our considered view, ought to have been brought to the notice of the Court after the pronouncement of the decision in Satnam Overseas (supra). Instead, a conscious decision was made by the State in bringing the amendment of the Act in 2003 ostensibly to cure the defects pointed out in Satnam Overseas (supra) which result, however, did not materialize. Rather the amendments brought in had the effect of assuming the colour of an attempt to overcome the verdict rendered in Satnam Overseas (supra) which is not a permissible course of action for the legislature.