Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Bihar S. A. Produce Marketing Board vs Shankar Makhana Bhandar And Others

Supreme Court10 January 1994M.M. Punchhi · B.P. Jeevan Reddy

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A validating statute that removes a defect in an earlier administrative action operates prospectively to cure the defect and validate all prior levies and collections made under that action, even where courts have previously struck down those levies and collections on the ground of the defect, because the statute removes the factual and legal basis on which those court decisions rested.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

PETITIONER:BIHAR S. A. PRODUCE MARKETING BOARD
Vs.
RESPONDENT:SHANKAR MAKHANA BHANDAR AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT10/01/1994
BENCH:PUNCHHI, M.M.BENCH:PUNCHHI, M.M.JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
CITATION:1994 SCC Supl. (2) 522
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDERORDER
1. Leave granted.

2. We are inclined to allow this appeal. The High Court seems to have committed a grave error in minimising the effect of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets (Validation) Act, 1982 (Bihar Act No. 64 of 1982) whereby the defect of non-publication of notification No. 14841, dated October 27, 1967 and other notifications mentioned therein was removed and it was ordained that the market fee levied, collected or to be levied and collected shall not be illegal and invalid merely on the ground of such non- publication. As a sequence, the contrary effect of any judgment, decree or order of any court was removed and the said notification as also the other notifications were mandated to be deemed to be valid and effective and all levies made and market fees collected deemed to have been validly realised, taken, done and issued as if the provisions of the Act were at all times in force. It appears to us that the High Court was under the impression that since it had pointed out in a string of cases the effect of nonpublication of notice, its decision could not be upset by the Validation Act. This impression of the High Court was obviously wrong for the Validation Act had not directly attacked the judgments of the courts, but knocked off their basis by validating the non-publication to be as if valid publication. The defect having been removed, the basis of the set of cases decided by the High Court stood + Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4828 of 1993 523 knocked off and hence the Validation Act had a field to role over so as to justify the levies and the collections.

3. In this view of the matter, the appeal necessarily has to be allowed and accordingly we do so, setting aside the impugned order of the High Court declaring the fees levied and collected or to be levied and collected from the respondents as valid. No costs.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free