Maganlal Chhagganlal (P) Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors [1974] INSC 91 (11 April 1974)

ALAGIRISWAMI, A.

RAY, A.N. (CJ) PALEKAR, D.G.

KHANNA, HANS RAJ MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN BHAGWATI, P.N.

KRISHNAIYER, V.R.

CITATION: 1974 AIR 2009 1975 SCR (1) 1 1974 SCC (2) 402

CITATOR INFO:

R 1974 SC2044 (2) RF 1975 SC 648 (2) F 1975 SC1187 (21,22,23,24) F 1976 SC 490 (158) F 1977 SC2279 (31) F 1977 SC2437 (6) E&R 1979 SC 478 (71,136,137) R 1979 SC1303 (8) R 1979 SC1588 (12) D 1980 SC 801 (6,7) F 1980 SC1144 (3,4) R 1980 SC1438 (13) R 1981 SC 670 (8) APL 1982 SC 780 (2) RF 1982 SC 781 (5) RF 1983 SC 658 (13) R 1984 SC1828 (2) F 1985 SC 930 (1) RF 1988 SC1136 (10) RF 1989 SC1933 (23) R 1991 SC 855 (35)

ACT:

Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 14--Provision in the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. 1888 and the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955, for a speedy procedure of eviction in addition to procedure in a civil suit--Special procedure, if discriminatory.

HEADNOTE:

Chapter VA was introduced in the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, by Maharashtra Act 14 of 1961. It consists of ss. 105A to 105H. Section 105A (d) defines unauthorised occupation. Under 9. 105B (p) the Commissioner, by notice served on the person in unauthorised occupation could order him to vacate within one mouth of the date of service of the notice. on any of the grounds mentioned in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of that sub-section.

Under sub-s. (2), before making such an order, the Commissioner a ball issue a notice to the persons concerned specifying the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made and to show cause against the proposed order of eviction. The person concerned can file a written statement, produce documents and is entitled to appear before the Commissioner by a lawyer. If, after hearing the person concerned the Commissioner is satisfied that the case falls under clauses (a). (b) or (c) of sub-@. (1) he issues a notice of eviction, and, if the person so ordered to vacate fails to comply with the order be, as well as any other person who obstructs eviction, can be evicted by force under sub-s. (3). Under sub-s. (6) the Commissioner may. in certain cases, in lieu of evicting the person cancel the order under sub-s. (1) and such person may continue in occupation. Under s. 105E the Commissioner, for the purpose of holding any inquiry under the Act. has the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the C.P.C. in respect of.

(i) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath, (ii) requiring the discovery and production of documents. and (iii any other matter which may be prescribed by regulations under s.105H. Under s. 105F every order of eviction is appealable to the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court of Bombay or such other judicial officer of not less than 10 years standing as the Principal Judge may designate. The appellate Judge is given power to stay the enforcement of the order of Commissioner on conditions and is required to dispose of the appeal expeditiously. Section 105G provides that, subject to the result of the appeal, every order of the Commissioner or of the appellate Judge is final. Under s. 105H regulations may be made. inter alia, in respect of holding of inquiries and the procedure to be followed in appeals.

The Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955, also lays down special procedure for eviction of persons from government premises which is more or less similar to Chapter V of the Municipal Act. The power to order the eviction is given to an authority not lower in rank than a Deputy Collector or an Executive Engineer Section 8A of the Act provides that no civil court shalt have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of eviction.

There is no such provision in the Municipal Act but the proceedings in the instant cases arose before s. 8A was introduced in the 1955-Act by Maharashtra Act of 1969.

The constitutional validity of Chapter VA of the Municipal Act and the provisions of the Government Premises (Eviction) Act. as it stood prior to its amendment by Maharashtra Act of 1969, was challenged on the Sound that they contravene Art. 14 on the basis of the decision of this Court in Northern India Caterers [1967] 3 S.C.R. 399, wherein it was held, by the majority of Judges that amongst occupants of public premises inter se there was discrimination in as much as the special procedure in the Punjab Public Premises and Land 2 (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959, was more drastic and prejudicial than the ordinary procedure of a civil suit and that it was left to the arbitrary and unfettered discretion of the Government to adopt such special procedure against some and not against the others.

HELD (By Full Court) : The impugned provisions of the two Acts are not violative of Art. 14.

(Per A. N. Ray. C.J., Palekar, Mathew and Alagiriswami, JJ.) (1) It could not be contended that the special provisions of law applying to government and public bodies are not based upon reasonable classification or that they offend Art. 14. [10 F-G] (2) The mere availability of two procedures will not vitiate one of them, namely, the special procedure. [23 B] Where a statute providing for more drastic procedure different from the ordinary procedure covers the whole field covered by the ordinary procedure as in Anwarali Sarkar's Case [1952] S.C.R. 284 and Surajmal Mohta's case [1965] 1 S.C.R. 448, without any guidelines as to the class of cases in which either procedure to is be resorted to, the, statute will be hit by Art. 14. But a provision for appeal may cure the defect. Also in such cases, if from the preamble and surrounding circumstances as well as the provisions of the statutes themselves, explained and amplified by affidavits, necessary guidelines could be inferred as in the Saurashtra Case [1952] S.C.R. 435 and Jyoti Pershads' case [1962] 2 S.C.R. 125, the statute will not be hit by the Article.

Where the statute itself covers only a class of cases as in Haldar's case [1960] 2 S.C.R. 646 and Bajoria's case [1954] S.C.R. 30 the statute will not be bad. The fact that in such cases executive will choose which cases are to be tried under the special procedure will not affect the validity of the statute. [22 G-23 B] (3) In the present cases, the statutes themselves, in the two classes of cases, that is, premises belonging to the Corporation and the Government, clearly lay down the purpose behind them namely that they should be subject to speedy procedure in the matter of evicting unauthorised persons occupying them. The fact that the legislature considered that the ordinary procedure is insufficient or ineffective for evicting the unauthorised occupants and provided a special speedy procedure therefore, is a clear and sufficient guidance for the authorities on whom the duty of evicting such occupants and the power to do so has been conferred. [23 B-G] (4) Further, it would be extremely unreal to hold that an administrative officer would, in taking proceedings for eviction of unauthorised occupants of government and municipal property, resort to the procedure prescribed in the two Acts in some cases and to the ordinary civil court in others. In considering whether the officers would be discriminating between one set of persons and another, one has to take into account normal human behaviour. It is not every fancied possibility of discrimination but real risk that must be taken into account. Discrimination is not writ large on the face of the statute; it may be possible but highly improbable, and, if there is discrimination in actual practice the power of this Court can be invoked. [Z3 D-G] (5) Moreover, considering the object with which the special procedure has been enacted the procedures laid down by the two Acts are not so harsh or unconscionable as to suggest that a discrimination would result if resort to them is had in some cases and to the ordinary civil court in others.

Even though the officers deciding the question are administrative officers there is ample provision in the Acts for notice of the grounds of eviction and opportunity to the person affected to file a written statement and produce documents. He can also be represented by a lawyer and the officer himself has power to enforce attendance of witnesses, to examine them on oath, and to order discovery and production of documents. 'There is also provision for appeal to the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court or a District Judge. It may be that a second appeal is not available to the affected person as when procedure before an ordinary civil court is followed, but the aggrieved party may resort to the High Court under either Art. 226 or 227 and this is not less effective than a second appeal. [24 DH] 3 Lachmandas Kewalram Ahuja V. Bombay [1952] S.C.R. 710; Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Sri A. V. Viswanatha Sastri [1955] 1 S.C.R. 787; Muthiah v. C.I.T. Madras [1955] 2 S.C.R. 1247;

Thangal Kunju Musaliar v. M. Venkitachalam Potti & Anr.[1955] 2 S.C.R. 1196 and Ramkrishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar [1959] S.C.R. 279. referred to.

(6) The majority of the Court in the Northern India Caterers' case in ignoring the obligatory nature of the notice under s. 4 of the Punjab Act and discretionary power under s. 5 which was to be exercised after hearing the patty, were in error in proceeding on the basis of s. 5 alone and holding that it conferred arbitrary power on the Collector to resort to the power under the Act in the case of some and to a suit in the case of others. Under s. 4, if the Collector is of opinion that a person is in unauthorised occupation and has to be evicted he shall issue a notice to him to. show cause why an order of eviction should not be passed. But after considering the cause shown, evidence produced and after giving the person a reasonable opportunity of being heard the Collector may order eviction.

Therefore, if he is of opinion that it is a case where a suit is more appropriate he may not order eviction, and then, it would be for the Government to institute the suit.

The Collector has no discretion either to file a suit or to take proceedings under the Act. Nor can the Government order the Collector to pass an order of eviction in every case under s. 5 as the power under that section is the Collectors' statutory power. [23 H-24 D] Northern India Caterers Ltd. v.. Punjab [1967] 3 S.C.R. 399, overruled.

(Per Khanna J) :(1) The simple fact that there are two forums with different procedures would not justify the quashing of the impugned provisions is being violative of Art. 14 especially when both procedures are fair and in consonance with the principles of natural justice. What is necessary to attract the inhibition of the Article is that there must be substantial and qualitative differences between the two procedures so that one is really and substantially more drastic and prejudicial than the other.

A dogmatic and finical approach in applying the Article should be avoided.[26 C-D] The impugned provisions provided for the giving of notice to the party affected; he has to be informed of the grounds on which the order for eviction is proposed to be made; he has to be afforded an opportunity to file a written statement and produce documents; and he can be represented by lawyers. The provision-, of the C.P.C. regarding summoning and enforcing attendance of persons and examining them on oath as also those relating to discovery and production of documents which are made applicable, provide a valuable safeguard. The aggrieved party has a right of appeal and the appeal lies not to an administrative officer but to a judicial officer of the status of a Principal Judge of the City Civil Court or a District Judge. If the appellate officer concerned acts beyond his jurisdiction his order would be liable to be assailed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, the procedure envisaged in the impugned provisions is not so onerous and drastic as would justify an inference of discrimination. [25 H-26 C] (2) It would thus appear that some of the infirmities from which the Punjab Act, which was struck down in the Northern India Caterer's Case 11967] 3 S.C.R. 399, suffered, are not present in the impugned enactments. Hence there are no sufficient grounds for overruling the view expressed by the majority in the Northern India Caterers Case. [25 D, 29E-F] This Court may, no doubt, in appropriate cases overrule the view previously taken by it but that should only be for compelling reasons. Necessity may sometimes be felt of ridding stare decision of its petrifying rigidity. Some new aspects may come to light and it may become essential to cover fresh grounds to meet the new situations or to overcome difficulties which did not manifest themselves or were not taken into account when the earlier view was propounded. Law. if it has to satisfy human needs and to meet the problems of life, must adapt it.;elf to cove with new situations. It has to be recognised that there is a continuous process of growth of law and one can retard it only at the risk of alienating law from life itself. There should not be much hesitation to abandon an untenable position when the rule to be discarded was, in its origin, the product 4 of institutions or conditions which have gained a new significance or development with the progress of years. It sometimes happen that the rule of law which grew up in remote generations may, in the fullness of experience, be found to serve another generation badly. The Court cannot allow itself to be tied down and become captive of a view which, in the light of the subsequent experience, has been found to be patently erroneous, manifestly unreasonable or to cause hardship or to result in plain iniquity or public inconvenience. [27 B-G] In Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, [1955] 2 S.C.R. 603 although this Court affirmed its power to overrule and depart from the view expressed in its previous judgments, it also stressed the importance of not lightly dissenting from previous pronouncements of this Court. A view which has been accepted for a long period of time should not be disturbed unless the court can say positively that it was wrong, or unreasonable, or that it was productive of public hardship or inconvenience. It has to be borne in mind that certainty and continuity are essential ingredients of rule of law, and certainty in law would be considerably eroded and suffer a serious set back if the highest court of the land readily overrules the view expressed by it in earlier cases even though that view has held the field for a number of years. In many cases which come up before this Court two views are possible and simply because the Court considers that the view not taken by the Court in an earlier case was a better view would not justify the overruling of the view taken in the earlier case. The law laid down by this Court is binding upon all courts in the country under Art. 141 and numerous cases all over the country are decided in accordance with the view taken by this Court. Many people arrange their affairs and large number of transactions also take place on the, faith of the correctness of the view taken by this Court. It would create uncertainty, instability and confusion if such a view is held to be not the correct law. [26 F-27 B; 28 E-G, 27 EF] The Court has thus to keep the balance between the need of certainty and continuity and the desirability of growth and development of law. On the one band the need is to ensure that the judicial inventiveness shall not be desiccated or stunted and on the other it is essential to curb the temptation to lay down new and novel principles in substitution of well-established principles in the ordinary run of cases and the readiness to canonize the new principles too quickly before their saintliness has been affirmed by the passage of time. [27 F-H] It may be that the view expressed by the minority in the Northern India Caterers case appears to be preferable but that by itself would not show that a decision arrived at by the majority was plainly erroneous requiring to be overruled. It also cannot be said that the decision had given rise to public inconvenience and hardship. The legislature, in view of the majority decision in the case made necessary amendments in many of the enactments so as to bar the jurisdiction of the civil court in matters dealt with by those enactments, and no constitutional amendment was required to set right the difficulty experienced as a result of the majority decision. [29 F-H] (Per Bhagwati and krishna Iyer, JJ) . (1) It is not uncommon to find legislation according special treatment to Government or other public bodies, and such legislation has been upheld by this Court in numerous decided cases. But from that it does not follow that every law which gives differential treatment to government or other public bodies is necessarily immune from challenge on the ground of discrimination. To get out of the reach of the equality clause in Art. 14 it must appear that not only a classification has been made but also that it is one based on some real distinction bearing a just and reasonable relation to the object of the legislation and is not a mere arbitrary selection. [34 C-D, G-H, 3 5 A-B] In the present case, the speedy machinery for eviction of unauthorised occupants of public premises is justified in that it is in the interest of public that speedy and expeditious recovery of such premises from unauthorised occupiers is made possible through the instrumentality of a speedier procedure instead of the elaborate procedure by way of civil suit involving both expense and delay. There is thus a valid basis of differentiation and the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions in the two statutes cannot, in the circumstances, be assailed on the ground that they make unjust discrimination between occupiers of government or municipal premises and occupiers of other premises. [35 G36 C] 5 (2) Unlike the decision in Arizona Copper Co. v. Hammer (63 Law. Ed. 1058; 250 U.S. 400) which was concerned with a party having several rights to relief arising out of the same act, the present case is concerned with the existence of several remedies in enforcement of a single right to relief. The only right which is sought to be enforced by the Municipal Corporation and the Government is a right based on title given by the general law of the land and it is for the enforcement of this right that two alternative procedures are available to the Municipal Corporation or the Government. Therefore, it could not be urged by the respondents, on the basis of the Hammer case, that the constitutional guarantee under Art. 14 is not violated where the law gives a free choice of remedies to a person entitled to relief even if one remedy is more drastic and prejudicial than the other. If for determination and enforcement of a liability two alternative procedures are available, one more drastic and prejudicial than the other and no guiding policy or principle is laid down by the legislature as to when one or the other procedure shall be followed, so that, either procedure may be indiscriminately adopted against persons similarly situated, the law providing for the more drastic and prejudicial procedure would be violative of the equal protection clause. [40 A-C, E] Arizona Copper Co, v. Hammeer, 63 Law. Ed. 1058; 250 U.S.

400, explained.

State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali, [1952] S.C.R. 284, Shri Meenakshil Mills Ltd., Madurai v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri, [1955] 1 S.C.R. 787, Suraj Mull Mohta v. A. V. Vishvanatha Sastri, [1955] 1 S.C.R. 448, Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra, [1952] S.C.R. 435, Kedar Nath Bajoria v.State of West Bengal, [1954] S.C.R. 30, and M. Cr. Muthiah

[1955] 2 S.C.R. 1247, referred to.

(3) The initiation of the special procedure provided in Chapter VA at the Municipal Act is with the Municipal Commissioner as he is to issue a notice under s. 105B(3)but, so far as the ordinary procedure of a civil suit is concerned, it can only be filed by the Municipal Corporation with the previous approval of the Standing Committee. It could not however be contended, on this basis that the choice between the two alternative procedures is not vested in the same authority and that therefore there is no violation of Art. 14. [45 E-G] it is not necessary in order to incur the condemnation of the equality clause that the initiation of both procedures should be left to the arbitrary discretion of one and the same authority. What the equality clause strikes at is discrimination howsoever it results. To the person subjected to the more drastic and onerous procedure it is immaterial whether such procedure is put into operation by one or the other agency of the government or the public authority. It would be nothing short of hypertechnicality to say that action against him is not initiated by the Municipal Commissioner or the Collector. The constitutionality of a statutory provision cannot turn on mere difference of the hands that harm, though both belong to the Government or the Corporation for otherwise, it would be easy to circumvent the guarantee of equality and to rob it of its substance by a subtle and well manipulated statutory provision vesting the more. drastic and prejudicial procedure in a different organ of the government or public authority than the one in whose hands lies the power to initiate the ordinary procedure. One must look at the substance and not the form. [46 A-H] (4) Moreover, it is not correct to say that it is the Municipal Commissioner who initiates the special procedure set out in Chapter VA of the Municipal Act. When he issues notice under s. 105B (2) against an occupant he really acts on behalf of and for the benefit of the Municipal Corporation, whose right he seeks to enforce. Similarly the Dy. Collector or Executive Engineer acts on behalf of the Government Therefore, it is really the Municipal Corporation and the Government that avail themselves of the special procedure. [47 B-D] (5) It could not also be contended on behalf IS the respondents that even where two procedures are available against a person, one substantially more drastic and prejudicial than the other and there is no guiding principle or policy laid down by the legislature as to when one or the other shall be adopted. there would still be no violation of the equality clause if both procedures are fair. Such a contention may be relevant where the question is as regards a reasonableness of the restriction under Art. 19, But when the question is under Art. 14, mere fairness of the special procedure which is impugned as discriminatory is 6 not enough to take it out of its inhibition. What has to be considered is Whether there is equality before law; and therefore the question whether the two procedures are so disparate substantially and qualitatively as to lead to unequal treatment, has to be asked and answered. [47 E-48 C] (6) The challenge against the constitutional validity of Chapter V-A of tile Municipal Act and Government Premises Eviction Act must, however, be rejected. [53 G-H] No classification can be logically complete or precise.

Life is not capable of being divided into water-tight divisions and categories. The legislature can therefore do not more than define broad categories and indicate the policy and purpose underlying the legislation and leave it to a stated authority to make selective application of the law in accordance with such policy and purpose. it is inevitable that when a special procedure is being prescribed for a defined class of persons such as occupiers of municipal or government premises, discretion-of course guided and controlled by the underlying policy and purpose of the legislature-must necessarily be left in the administrative authority to select occupiers of municipal or government premises to be brought within the operation of the special procedure. That would not be obnoxious to Art.

14 because, in such a case, the discretion to make the selection would be a guided and controlled discretion and not an absolute and unfettered one. In such cases, the power given to the executive body would import a duty on it to classify the subject-matter of legislation in accordance with the objective indicated in the statute. The discretion has to be exercised in conformity with the policy to effectuate which the direction is given and it is in relation to that objective that the propriety of the classification would have to be tested. it is, therefore, not correct to say that merely because the Municipal Corporation or Government is not compellable to adopt the special procedure set out in the impugned provisions against all occupiers of municipal or government premises, but is vested with the discretion in the matter, the impugned provisions offend against Art. 14. It would indeed to be odd and certainly harsh and oppressive to the occupiers of municipal or government premises if the Municipal Corporation or Municipal Commissioner or Government were to be compelled to adopt the special procedure in all cases.

The nature of the dispute, the complexity of the issue arising for consideration and the legal competence of the adjudicating authority to decide such questions will have to be weighed alongside with the need for speedy and expeditious recovery of municipal or government premises for public uses which is the basic policy and purpose underlying the legislation, and, the Municipal Corporation or Municipal Commissioner or Government would have to decide in accordance with the guidance furnished by these considerations, whether, in a given case, the special procedure should be adopted or the occupier of the municipal or government premises should be proceeded against under the ordinary procedure. There is thus clear guidance provided by the legislature as to when the special procedure should be adopted and when the case should be, left to be dealt with under the ordinary procedure and the impugned provisions do not suffer from the vice of discrimination.

[49 C50 F] Kathti Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra, [1952] S.C.R. 435, Ketlar Nath Bajoria v. State of West Bengal, [1954] S.C.R. 30, and A. Thangal Kunjit Musaliar v. M. Venkitachalam Potti, [1955] 2 S.C.R. 1196, referred to.

Northern India Caterers Ltd. v. State of Punjab, [1967] 3 S.C.R. 399, overruled.

(7) It must also be constantly borne in mind, for otherwise it is likely to distort the proper perspective of Art. 14, that mere minor differences between the two procedures would not be enough to invoke the inhibition of the equality clause. What the equality clause is intended to strike at are real and substantial disparities, substantive or processor, and arbitrary or capricious actions of the executive, and, it would be contrary to the object and intendment of the equality clause to exalt delicate distinctions, shades of harshness and theoretical possibilities of, prejudice into legislative inequality or executive discrimination. (54 B-D] There is no formula by which it can be said that one procedure is substantially more drastic and onerous than the other. It does not follow that 7 merely because one procedure provides the forum of a civil court while the other provides the forum of an administrative tribunal that the latter is necessarily more drastic and onerous than the former. It is well known that a regular suit in the civil court has a long drawn out, expensive and escalating litigative system which often spells ruin to the ordinary man, and consequently, by contrast, a prompt and inexpensive instrument, though manned by administrative personnel untrained in the sophisticated court methodology and unaided by long and intricate arguments of counsel engaged on onerous terms, may be preferred by many in this country. The procedure of the civil court also suffers from many technicalities. It functions on the basis of adversary system of administration of justice which may bring about inequality where the opposing adversaries are not evenly balanced. It is quite possible that in certain types of cases people may receive better justice where judicial formalism is kept out and the procedure is made informal. The many-tiered system of appeals built into the judicial pyramid often results in a pyrrhic victory and leads to disenchantment with the end product of delayed justice. Therefore, whenever a special machinery is devised by the legislature entrusting the power of determination of disputes to another authority set up by the legislature in substitution of courts of law one should not react adversely against the establishment of such an authority merely because of a certain predilection for the prevailing system of administration of justice by courts of law. [54-155 G] In the present case, it is apparent that the special procedure set out in Chapter V-A of the Municipal Act is not substantially more drastic and prejudicial than the ordinary procedure of civil suit. The initial authority to determine the liability to eviction is no doubt the Municipal Commissioner who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Municipal Corporation and who may not be possessed of any legal training but s. 68 of the Municipal Act provides that this function may be discharged by any Municipal Officer whom the Municipal Commissioner may generally or specially empower and the Municipal Commissioner can authorise a Deputy Municipal Commissioner attached to the legal department of the Municipal Corporation to discharge this function. The determination of liability to eviction is therefore really, in practice, made by an officer having proper and adequate legal training. Then again, the occupant against whom the special procedure is set in motion would have a right to file his written statement and produce documents and he would also be entitled to examine and cross-examine witnesses. The officer holding the inquiry is given the power to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses, examinethem on oath and also require the discovery and production of documents. The occupant is entitled to appear at the inquiry by an Advocate. Thus, in effect and substance the same procedure which is followed in a civil court ismade available in the proceeding before the officer holding the inquiry. There is also a right of appeal against the decision of such officer to a senior and highly experienced judicial officer and not to a mere executive authority, namely, the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court or any other judicial officer of not less than 10 years standing. It is also open to the aggrieved party to bring up the matter before the High Court for examination under Art. 226 and 2227 even though a revision application against the appellate order is not provided for. The ultimate decision is, thus, by a judicial officer trained in the art and skill of law and not by an executive officer.

Therefore, in the context of need for speedy and expeditious recovery of public premises for utilisation for important public uses, where dilatoriness of the procedure may defeat the very object of recovery, the special procedure set out in the two Acts cannot be regarded as really and substantially more drastic and prejudicial than the ordinary procedure of a civil court. The two procedures are not substantially and qualitatively disparate as to attract the vice of discrimination.[55 C-56] & CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 680of 1968.

From the judgment and order dated the 21/23rd day of August, 1967 of the Bombay High Court in Misc. Petition No. 478of 1966.

Civil Appeals Nos. 2076-2080 of 1969 & 2093-2103 of 1969.

8 From the judgment and order dated the 14/17th March, 1969 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application Nos. 676, 837, 838, 840 and 841 of 1967 and 827 to 836 and 839 of 1969.

Civil Appeal No. 2527 of 1969.

From the judgment and order dated the 21st/24th August, 1967 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No. 1 1 16 of 1966.

Civil Appeal No. 249 of 1970.

From the judgment and order dated the 25th August, 1967 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Appeal No. 1138 of 1966.

Writ Petitions Nos. 333-348 of 1970.

Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India.

A. K. Sen, S. C. Mazumdar and S. K. Basu, for the appellant (in C.A. 680/68).

G. L. Sanghi, A. D. Merchant and B. R. Agarwala, for the appellant (in C.As. 2076-2080/69 and 2093-2103/69).

S. J. Sorabjee and B. R. Agarwala, for the appellant (in C.A. 2527/69).

S. J. Sorabjee, A. D. Merchant and B. R. Agarwala, for the petitioner (in W.P. 333-348/70).

B. R. Agarwala, K. L. Hathi and P. C. Kapoor, for the appellant (in C.A. 249/70).

R. J. Joshi, M. N. Kothari, K. S. Kadam, P. C. Bhartari, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for respondents Nos. 1 & 2 (in C.A. 680/68).

M. C. Bhandare, K. S. Kadam, P. C. Bhartari, J. B.

Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (in C.A. Nos. 2527/69).

M. C. Setalvad, Y. S. Chitale, K. S. Kadam, P. C.

Bhartari, J. B.

Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (in CA No. 249/70).

M. C. Bhandare and M. N. Sliroff, for respondent Nos. 7 (in C.A. 2527/69) and for respondent no. 3 (in C.A. 249/70).

V. S. Desai and M. N. Shroff, for respondent No. 3 (in C.A. 680/ 68 and respondent no 2 in (in C.As. 2076-2080/68, 2093-2103) and for respondent nos. 2 & 3 (in all the W.Ps.).

The Judgment of A. N. Ray, C.J., D. G. Palekar, K. K. Mathew and A. Alagiriswami, JJ., was delivered by A. Alagiriswami J., H. R. Khanna, J. gave a separate opinion. P. N.

Bhagwati, J. also gave a separate opinion on behalf of himself and V. R. Krishna Iyer, J.

ALAGIRISWAMI, J.-These appeals and writ petitions relate to the legality of certain proceedings taken under Chapter V-A of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955. Chapter V-A was introduced in the Bombay Municipal Act, 1888 by Maharashtra Act 14 of 1961. That chapter contains sections 105A and 105B. According to the provisions of those sections the Commissioner in relation to premises belonging to or vesting in, or taken on lease by the corporation and the General 9 Manager (also defined as the Commissioner) of the Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking in relation to premises of the corporation which vest in it for the purposes of that undertaking were granted certain powers of eviction in respect of unauthorised occupation of any corporation premises. Unauthorised occupation is defined as occupation by any person of corporation premises without authority for such occupation and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the premises after the authority under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired, or has been duly determined. Under section 105B the Commissioner, by notice served on the person in unauthorised occupation, could ask him to vacate if he had not paid for a period of more than two months the rent or taxes lawfully due from him in respect of such premises; or sub-let, contrary to the terms or conditions of his occupation, the whole or any part of such premises;

or committed, or is committing, such acts of waste as are likely to diminish materially the value, or impair substantially the utility, of the premises, or otherwise acted in contravention of any of the terms, express or implied, under which he is authorised to occupy such premises; or it any person is in unauthorised occupation of any corporation premises; or any corporation premises in the occupation of any person are required by the corporation in the public interest. Before making such an order the Commissioner should issue a notice calling upon the person concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made and specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made. The person concerned can file a written statement and produce documents and is entitled to appear before the Commissioner by advocate, attorney or pleader. Persons failing to comply with the order of eviction as well as any other person who obstructs eviction can be evicted by force. Under section 105C there is power to recover rent or damages as arrears of property taxes. A person ordered to vacate on the grounds of being in arrears of rent or acting in contravention of the terms under which he is authorised to occupy the premises could be allowed to continue if he satisfies the Commissioner. The Commissioner has, for the purpose of holding any inquiry, the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code cf Civil Procedure, when trying a suit, in respect of (a) summoning and enforcing the presence of any person and examining him on oath,(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents, and (c) any other matter which may be prescribed by regulations. An appeal from every order of the Commissioner lies to the principal Judge of the City Civil Court or such other judicial officer as the principal Judge may designate. The appeal is to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Subject to the results of the appeal every order of the Commissioner or the appellate officer is final. The power to make regulations includes the power to make regulations in respect of holding of inquiries and the procedure to be followed in such appeals.

The provisions of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act are more or less similar except that they relate to Government premises and the power to order eviction is given to the competent authority not lower in rank than that of a Deputy Collector or an Executive Engineer appointed by the State Government. The only other matter 10 in respect of which the provisions of this Act differ from the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, just now referred to, is that section 8A of this Act provides that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of the eviction of any person from any Government premises on any of the grounds specified in section 4 or the recovery of the arrears of rent or the damages payable for use or occupation of such premises.

This amendment was made as a consequence of the decision of this Court in Northern India Caterers v. Punjab (1967 3 SCR 399). But the matters arising under this Act and now before this Court were in respect of proceedings taken before section 8A was introduced in the Act by Maharashtra Act 12 of 1969 and this section has, therefore, no relevance for the purposes of these cases.

It was not and could not be argued that the Acts in so far as they provided for special procedures applying to the State and 2the Municipal Corporation were invalid. The decisions in Baburao Shantaram More v. The Bombay Housing Board (1954 SCR 572) upholding the exemption of premises belonging to the Government or a local authority from the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947; The Collector of Malabar v. Erimal Ebrahim Hajee (1957 SCR 970) upholding the provision for special modes of recovery for income-tax; Asgarali Nazarali Singaporawalla v. The State of Bombay (1957 SCR 678) upholding the validity of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 providing for the trial of all offences punishable under ss.

161, 165 or 165-A of the Indian Penal Code, or sub-s. (2) of s. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 exclusively by Special Judges; Shri Munna Lal & Anr. v. Collector of Jhalawar & Ors. (1961 2 SCR 962) upholding the provision of the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act, 1952 for recovering moneys due to a State Bank; Nav Rattanmal v.State of Rajasthan (1962 2 SCR 324) upholding a special period of limitation for the Government; Lachhman Das on behalf of Firm Tilak Ram Bux v. State of Punjab (1963 2 SCR 353) upholding the provisions of an Act setting up separate authorities for determination of disputes and prescribing a special procedure to be followed by them for the recovery of the dues of a State Bank; and Builders Corp. v. Union (1965 2 SCR 289) upholding the Doctrine of priority of Crown Debts, are all instances where special provisions applicable to the State were upheld. It cannot now be contended that special provision of law applying to Government and public bodies is not based upon reasonable classification or that it offends Art. 14.

The submission was a much more limited one and that is that as there are two procedures available to the Corporation and the State Government, one by way of a suit under the ordinary law and the other under either of the two Acts, which is harsher and more onerous than the procedure under the ordinary law, the latter is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution in the absence of any guidelines as to which procedure may be adopted. For this reliance was wholly placed on the decision in the Northern India Caterers' case.

In that case the question arose under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act of 1959.

The majority consisting of Subba Rao, C.J. and Shelat and Vaidialingam, ]J. accepted that there is an intelligible 11 differentia between the two classes of occupiers, namely, occupiers of public property and premises and occupiers of private property and that it is in the interest of public that speedy recovery of rents and speedy eviction of unauthorised occupiers is made possible through the instrument mentality of a speedier procedure. However, they referred to the decisions of this Court in State of West Bengal v..Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952 SCR 284), Suraj Mall Mohta v. A. V. Visanatha Sastri (1965 1 SCR 448), Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Madural v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri (1955 1 SCR 787) and Banarsi Das v. Cane Commissioner, U.P. (1963 Supp.

2 SCR 760 : AIR 1963 SC 1417) and concluded that the principle which emerged from these decisions was that discrimination would result if there are two available procedures, one more drastic or prejudicial to the party concerned than the other which can be applied at the arbitrary will of the authority. They thought that as s. 5 conferred an additional remedy over and above the remedy by way of suit leaving it to the unguided discretion of the Collector to resort to one or the other by picking and choosing some only of those in occupation of public properties and premises for the application of the more drastic procedure under s. 5 that section laid itself open to the charge of discrimination and as being violative of Art. 14, and in that view held that section void. The minority consisting of Hidayatullah and Bachawat, JJ. held that the impugned Act made no unjust discrimination among the occupants of government properties inter se, that it promoted public welfare and was a beneficial measure of legislation, that it was not unfair or oppressive and that the unauthorised occupant was not denied equal projection of the laws merely because the Government had the option proceeding against him either by way of a suit or under the Act they further held that "an authorised occupant has no constitutional right to dictate that the Government should have no choice of proceedings, and that the argument based upon the option of the Government to file a suit is unreal because in practice the Government is not likely to institute a suit in a case when it can seek relief under the Act".

The decision in Northern India Caterers' case led to the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupation) Act, 1958 being replaced by Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 which was given retrospective operation from the date of the 1958 Act and barred the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a suit or proceeding in respect of eviction of any person in unauthorised occupation of public premises. It also led to the amendment of one of the Acts now under consideration, the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act introducing therein section 8A, already referred to, barring resort to the Civil Court. In Hari Singh v. Military Estate Officer (1973 1 SCR. 515) this Court referred to the decision in Northern India Caterers' case and upheld the validity of the 1971 Act on the ground that there was only one procedure for ejectment of persons in unauthorised occupation of public premises under the 1971 Act and that there was no vice of discrimination under it.

The argument based on the availability of two procedures, one more onerous and harsher than the other and, therefore, discriminatory has led some High Courts to resort to various reasoning In order to get 12 round the effect of the decision in the Northern India Caterers' case. This has happened in the case of Madras High Court in Abdul Rashid 'V. Asst. Engineer (Highways) (AIR 1970 Mad. 387), the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M.Begum v. State (AIR 1971 of 382) and Meharunnissa Begum v.State of Andhra Pradesh (1970-1 Andh. LT 88) and the Patna High Court in Bhartiya Hotel v. Union of India (AIR 1968 Pat. 476). The decision of the Patna High Court is one of the cases which was considered along with Hari Singh's case.

It is rather interesting that this attack based on Art. 14 of the Constitution should have led to the apparently more onerous and harsher procedure becoming the rule, the resort to the ordinary Civil Court being taken away altogether. It is difficult to imagine who benefits by resort to the ordinary Civil Courts being barred. One finds it difficult to reconcile oneself to the position that the mere possibility of resort to the Civil Court should make invalid a procedure which would otherwise be valid. It can very well be argued that as long as a procedure does not by itself violate either Art. 19 or Art. 14 and is thus constitutionally valid, the fact that procedure is more onerous and harsher than the procedure in the ordinary civil courts, should not make that procedure void merely because the authority competent to take action can resort to that procedure in the case of some and ordinary civil court procedure in the case of others. That a constitutionally valid provision of law should be held to be void because there is a possibility of its being resorted to in the case of some and the ordinary civil court procedure in the case of others somehow makes one feel uneasy and that ha-, been responsible for the attempts to get round the reasoning which is the basis in the decision in Northern India Caterers' case.

Let us now, therefore, see whether the decisions of this Court necessarily lead to the conclusion reached by the majority in Northern India Caterers' case. In doing so we shall take the various decisions of this ,,Court in their chronological order. The first of these is Anwar Ali Sarkar's case (supra). In that case under S. 5(1) of the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950, which read as follows "5(1). A Special Court shall try such offences or classes of offences or cases or classes of cases, as the State Government may by general or special order in writing, direct." a number of persons were tried by the Special Courts constituted under s. 3 of that Act. The Act was entitled "An Act to provide for the speedier trial of certain offences" and the preamble declared that "it is expedient to provide for the speedier trial of certain offences." The majority came to the conclusion that the necessity for speedier trial of offences did not provide a reasonable basis of classification and the procedure laid down by the Act for trial by Special Courts varied substantially from that laid down for the trial of offences generally by the Code of Criminal Procedure and as it left it to the uncontrolled discretion of the State Government to direct any case which it liked to be tried by the Special Court, it was void. Das J. (as he then was), who agreed with the majority's conclusion, however, referred to the circumstances which may legitimately call for a speedier trial and swift retribution by way of ,punishment to check the commission of such offences, in these words 13 "On the other hand, it is easy to visualise a situation when certain offences, e.g. theft in a dwelling house, by reason of the frequency of their perpetration or other attending circumstances, may legitimately call for a speedier trial and swift retribution by way of punishment to check the commission of such offences. Are we not familiar with gruesome crimes of murder,. arson, loot and rape committed on a large scale during communal riots in particular localities and are they not really different from a case of a stray murder, arson, loot or rape in another district which may not be affected by any communal upheaval ? Do not the existence of the communal riots and the concomitant crimes committed on a large scale call for prompt and speedier trial in the very interest and safety of the community ? May not political murders or crimes against the State or a class of the community, e.g., women, assume such proportions as would be sufficient to constitute them into a special class of offences requiring special treatment ? Do not these special circumstances add a peculiar quality to these offences or classes of offences or classes of cases which distinguish them from stray cases of similar crime s and is it not reasonable and even necessary to arm the State with power to classify them into a separate group and deal with them promptly ? I have no doubt in my mind that the surrounding circumstances and the special features I have mentioned above will furnish a very cogent and reasonable basis of classification, for it is obvious that they do clearly distinguish these offences from similar or even same species of offences committed elsewhere and under ordinary circumstances. This differentia quite clearly has a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act, namely, the speedier trial of certain offences. Such a classification will not be repugnant to the equal protection clause of our Constitution for there will be no discrimination, for whoever may commit the specified offence in the specified area in the specified circumstances will be treated alike and sent up before a Special Court for trial under the special procedure. Persons thus sent up for trial by a Special Court cannot point their fingers to the other persons who may be charged before an ordinary Court with similar or even same species of offences in a different place and in different circumstances and complain of unequal treatment, for those other persons are of a different category and are not their equals." He, therefore, held that "Section 5 (1). in so far as it empowers that State Government to direct 'offences' or 'classes of offences' or 'classes of cases to be tried by a Special Court, also by necessary implication and intendment, empowers the State Government to classify the 'offences' or 'classes of offences' or 'classes of cases', that is to say, to make a proper classifi14 cation in the sense I have explained. In my judgment, this part of the section, properly construed and understood, does not confer an uncontrolled and unguided power on. the state Government. On the contrary, this power is controlled by the necessity for making a proper classification which is guided by the preamble in the sense that the classification must have a rational relation to the object of the Act as recited in the preamble. It is, therefore, not an arbitrary power." It is interesting to compare this decision with the decision of this Court in the next case, Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra (1952 SCR 435) which was heard in part alongwith it (Anwar Ali Sarkar's case) but was adjourned to enable the respondent state to tile an affidavit explaining the circumstances which led to the enactment of the Saurashtra State Public Safety Measures (Third Amendment) Ordinance, 1949. It was heard by the same Bench which decided Anwar Ali Sarkar's case. Section 11 of the Ordinance there under consideration was exactly in the same terms as s. 5(1) of the West Bengal Special Court Act. The only difference between the two was that the Saurashtra Ordinance was purported to have been passed to provide "for public safety, maintenance of public order and preservation of peace and tranquility in the State of Saurashtra.

However, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the state giving facts and figures relating to an increasing number of incidents of looting, robbery, dacoity, nose-cutting and murder by marauding gangs of dacoits in certain areas of the state and these details were held to support the claim that the security of the state and public peace were jeopardised and that it became impossible to deal with the offences that were committed in different places expeditiously. The affidavit also stated that the areas specified in the notification were the main zones of the activities of the dacoits. The impugned Ordinance having thus been passed to combat the increasing tempo of certain types of regional crime, the two-fold classification on the lines of type and territory adopted in the impugned Ordinance was held reasonable and valid and the degree of disparity of treatment involved as in no way in excess of what the situation demanded. It was held that "the reference to public safety, maintenance of public order and preservation of peace and tranquillity in the preamble shows a definite objective and furnishes a tangible and rational basis of Classification to the State Government for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Ordinance and for choosing only such offences or cases as affect public safety, maintenance of public order and preservation of peace and tranquillity." It would be noticed thus that Anwar Ali Sarkar's case was concerned with a piece of legislation which covered the whole field of criminal law without any basis for classification except speedier trial which was held not to be a good ground for classification, while in Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra the preamble as well as the notification issued under the Act specified certain types of offences in certain areas alone, as being those which were to be tried by the Special Judge and were held to validate an exactly similar provision.

15 In Lachmandas Kewalram Ahuja & Anr. v. The State of Bombay (1952 SCR 710) section 12 of the Bombay Public Safety Measures Act, 1947 empowered Government to refer cases for trial by a Special Judge and was, therefore, held void as it did not purport to proceed on any classification. This would belong to the same category as Anwar Ali Sarkar's case. The next case in chronological order is of Suraj Mall Mohta & Co. v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri & Anr. (1955 1 SCR 448). In that case section 5(4) of the Taxation-on Income investigation Commission) Act, 1947 was held as "dealing with the same class of persons who fall within the ambit of section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, and as both these sections dealt with an persons who have similar characteristics and similar properties, the common characteristics being that they are persons who have not truly disclosed their income, and have evaded payment of taxation on income, and the procedure prescribed by the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act is substantially prejudicial and more drastic to the assesses than the procedure under the Indian Income-tax Act, and therefore, s. 5(4) being a piece of discriminatory legislation offends against the provisions of article 14 of the Constitution and is thus void." It would be noticed that as in Anwar A1i Sarkar's case in this case also the ordinary law under the Indian Income-tax Act and the extraordinary procedure under the Taxation of Income (Investigation Commission) Act covered the same class of people and there is no indication as to why certain cases should be sent to the Commission and certain cases be dealt with by, the regular Income-tax authorities. But here again it is interesting to note the observation but the overall picture is that though under the Indian Income-tax Act the same officer who first arrives at a tentative conclusion hears and decides the case, his decision is not fin is subject to appeal, while under the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 5 of the decision of the Commission tentatively arrived at in the absence of the assessee becomes final when taken in his presence, and that makes all the difference between the two procedures. If there was a provision for reviewing the conclusions of the Investigation Commission when acting both as investigators and judges, there might not have been such substantial discrimination in the two procedures as would bring the case within article 14; but as pointed out above, there is no provision of that kind in the impugned Act." It would, thus appear that if there had been a provision for appeal against the decision of the Investigation Commission the reference to that Commission would have been held valid.

We are referring particularly to this aspect because in both the statutes now under consideration there is a provision for appeal to the Civil Court which is safer and more liberal than the provision of appeal under the Income-tax Act to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal. Mr. Sen appearing for the appellants, however, tried to argue that the reference to the appeal in this decision was 16 only a reference to the appeal against the orders of the Income-tax Officer to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.

We do not see how that makes any difference. As already pointed out, the fact that under the statutes under consideration the appeal lies to the ordinary Civil Court is a point in their favour. The common feature between this case and Anwar Ali Sarkar's case is that the special procedure covers the whole field covered by the ordinary procedure and it was hold that there was no rational basis of classification of cases which could be sent to the Investigation Commission. The decisions in Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Sri A. V. Visvantha Sastri & Anr. (1955 1 SCR 767) and M. Ct. Muthiah & Ors. v. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras & Anr. (1955 2 SCR 1247) are on the same lines as in Suraj Mall Mohta's case and do not call for any discussion.

It is interesting to pass on next to A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar v.M. Venkitachalam Potti & Anr. (1955 2 SCR 1196) a case referred by the Government of the United State of Travancore and Cochin under s. 5(1) of the Travancore Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1124 modelled on the Indian Taxation oil income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947, for investigation by the Travancore Income-tax Investigation Commission in 1949. In 1950 the Indian Act was extended to Travancore and Cochin and the Travancore Act was allowed to continue to be in force with certain modifications. It was held that S. 5(1) of the Travancore Act XIV of 1124 read in Juxtaposition with s. 47 of the Travancore Income-tax Act, 1121 (XXIII of 1121) was not discriminatory because s. 47(1) of the Travancore Act XXIII of 1121 was directed only against those persons concerning whom definite information came into the possession of the Income-tax Officer and in consequence of which the Income-tax Officer discovered that the income of those persons had escaped or been under-assessed or assessed at too low a rate or had been the subject of excessive relief, and the, class of persons envisaged by S. 47(1) was a definite class about which there was definite information leading to discovery within 8 years or 4 years as the case may be of definite item or items of income which had escaped assessment. On the other hand under S. 5 ( 1) of the Travancore Act XIV of 1124 the class of persons sought to be reached comprised only those persons about whom there was no definite in formation and no discovery of any definite item or items of income which escaped taxation but about whom the Government had only prima facie reason to believe that they had evaded payment of tax to a substantial amount.

Further, it was definitely limited to the evasion of payment of taxation on income made during the war period, whereas s.

47(1) of the Travancore Act XXIII of 1121 was not confined to escapement from assessment of income-tax made during the war period." It was, therefore, held that there was no discrimination. It would be noticed how thin is the line of distinction between the two lines of classification. But that was held as justifying the different treatment between the two classes of cases. It is interesting to note that in Suraj Mall Mohta's case the provision of s.5(1) of the Taxation on income (Investigation Commission) Act 17 (Act XXX of 1947) referring to the class of "substantial evaders of Income-tax" who required to be specially treated under the drastic procedure provided in that Act was held not to provide a valid classification. But in this case the word "substantial" was, by reference to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary and the statement of law by Viscount Simon in Palsor v. Grinling (1948 AC 291, 317) taken along with an affidavit filed in the case, held to mean "class of persons who are intended to be subjected to this drastic procedure".

It was also held that "the possibility of such discriminatory treatment of persons falling within the same group or category, however, cannot necessarily invalidate this piece of legislation and that it was to be presumed, unless the contrary were shown, that the administration of a particular law would be done 'not with an evil eye and unequal hand' and the selection made by the Government of the cases of persons to be referred for investigation by the Commission would not be discriminatory." Reference was made to the judgment of Mukherjea, J. in the Saurashtra case to the effect :

In such cases, the power given to the executive body would import a duty on it to classify the subject-matter of legislation in accordance with the objective indicated in the statute. The discretion that is conferred on official agencies in such circumstances is not an unguided discretion, it has to be exercised in conformity with the policy to effectuate which the direction is given and it is in relation to that objective that the propriety of the classification would have to be tested.

If the administrative body proceeds to classify persons or things on a basis which has no rational relation to the objective of the legislature, its action can certainly be annulled offending against the equal protection clause. On the other hand, if the statute itself does not disclose a definite policy or objective and it confers authority on another to make selection at its pleasure, the statute would be held on the face of it to be discriminatory irrespective of the way in which it is applied." In Kedar Nath Bajoria v. The State of West Bengal (1954 SCR 30) the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 was under consideration. The Act provided for special procedure for the trial of certain offences.

It was entitled an Act to provide for the more speedy trial and more effective punishment of certain offences. These offences were set out in the Schedule to the Act. The Act empowered the Provincial Government to constitute Special Courts of criminal jurisdiction for specified areas an