1. Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore In this case the Supreme Court applied the rule of harmonious construction in resolving a conflict between Articles 25(2)(b) and 26(b) of the Constitution and it was held that the right of every religious denomination or any section thereof to manage its own affairs in matters of religion [Article 26(b)] is subject to a law made by a State providing for social welfare and reform or throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus [Article 25(2)(b)].
2. Calcutta Gas Company Pvt. Limited v State of West Bengal –
The Legislative Assembly of WB passed the Oriental Gas Company Act in 1960. The respondent sought to take over the management of the Gas Company under this Act. The appellant challenged the validity of this act by holding that the state Legislative Assembly had no power to pass such an under Entries 24 and 25 of the State List because the Parliament had already enacted the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 under Entry 52 of the Central List dealing with industries. It was observed by the Supreme Court that there are so many subjects in three lists in the Constitution that there is bound to be some overlapping and it is the duty of the courts in such situation is to ret to harmonise them, if possible, so the effect can be given to each of them. Entry 24 of the State List covers entire Industries in the State. Entry 25 is only limited to the Gas industry. Therefore Entry 24 covers every industry barring the Gas Industries because it has been specifically covered under Entry 25. Corresponding to Entry 24 of the State List, there is Entry 52 in the Union List. Therefore, by harmonious construction it became clear that gas industry was exclusively covered by Entry 25 of the State List over which the state has full control. Therefore, the state was fully competent to make laws in this regard.
3. Commissioner of Sales Tax, MP v Radha Krishna
Under section 46 (1) c of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, criminal prosecution of the respondent partners was sanctioned in this case by the Commissioner when even after repeated demands the assesse did not pay the sales tax. The respondent challenged this provision on the ground that there were two separate provisions under the Act, namely, section 22 (4 – A) and section 46 (1) c under which two different procedures were prescribed to realize the amount due but there was no provision of law which could tell that which provision should be applied in which case. According to the Supreme Court, the provision prescribed u/s 46 (1) c was more drastic. It was held that by harmonious construction of these two provisions, the conclusion drawn is that the Commissioner had a judicial discretion to decide as to which procedure to be followed in which case. Whenever the Commissioner will fail to act judicially, the court will have the right to intervene. However, in this case, the Commissioner had correctly decided that the more drastic procedure under section 46 (1) c deserved to be followed because of the failure of the assesse firm in paying sales tax despite the repeated demands by the sales tax officer.
4. Sirsilk Ltd. v Govt. of Andhra Pradesh –
An interesting question relating to a conflict between two equally mandatory provisions, viz., ss 17(1) and 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is a good illustration of the importance of the principle that every effort should be made to give effect to all the provisions of an act by harmonizing any apparent conflict between two or more of its provisions. Section 17(1) of the Act requires the government to publish every award of a Labour Tribunal within thirty days of its receipt and by sub – section (2) of section 17 the award on its publication becomes final. Section 18(1) of the Act provides that a settlement between employer and workmen shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. In a case where a settlement was arrived at after the receipt of the award of a Labour Tribunal by the Government but before its publication, the question was whether the Government was still required u/s 17(1) to publish the award. In construing these two equally mandatory provisions, the Supreme Court held that the only way to resolve the conflict was to hold that by the settlement, which becomes effective from the date of signing, the industrial dispute comes to an end and the award becomes infructuous and the Government cannot publish it.
EmoticonEmoticon