GOA GLASS FIBRE LTD. & ANR.versusSTATE OF GOA AND ANR.

                        [2010] 5 S.C.R. 970


A                GOA GLASS FIBRE LTD. & ANR.
                                  v.
                    STATE OF GOA AND ANR.
              (Writ Petition (c) No. 200 OF 2002 Etc.)
                            MAY 3, 2010
B
           [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.]

        Goa (Prohibition of Further Payment and Recovery of
    Rebate Benefits) Act, 2002:
c
        ss. 2, 3 and 4 - Act prohibiting payment, requiring
  recovery of benefits from beneficiaries and extinguishing all
  liabilities of State arising from void Notifications - Held:
  Having regard to the fact that the action in issuing the ·
D Notifications was unauthorised and wholly illegal and as the
  industrial units could not be allowed to reap the benefits of
  the illegal notifications, the State Legislature in its competence
  rightly enacted the Act - It cannot be said that the Act is aimed
  at nullifying the judgment of the Supreme Court or giving
E effect to the judgment of the High Court - Constitution of India,
  1950 - Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), Seventh Schedule - List Ill,
  Item 38.

        Constitution of India. 1950:

F       Seventh Schedule - List Ill, Item 38 - Electricity tariff -
  Legislature of State of Goa enacting Goa (Prohibition of
  Further Payment and Recovery of Rebate Benefits) Act, 2002
  - Held: Competence of the State Legislature to enact the Act
  is traceable to Entry 38 in List Ill of the Seventh Schedule -
G The Act has been enacted in the larger public interest to save
  the public exchequer from being drained of - The State has
  every right to recover, by resorting to legislative measures,
  the benefits availed of by the persons who cannot be
  permitted to retain the same - The object of the Act is not to
H                                970
GOA GLASS FIBRE LTD. & ANR. v. STATE OF GOA 971
                AND ANR.

undo or reverse the judgments either of tqe Supreme Court         A
or the High Court nor is it aimed at giving effect to the
judgment of the High court - The Act meets and satisfies the
constitutional test completely - Goa (Prohibition of Further
 Payment and Recovery of Rebate Benefits) Act, 2002.
     Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 32- Industrial Units challenging   8
a State enactment on the ground of violation of Articles 14
and 19(1)(g) - Held: No citizen has complained that his
fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) are
violated by the Act - Nor is there anything in the Act which
suggests invidious discrimination, unreasonable classification    C
or manifest violation of equality clause - Therefore, the writ
petition under Article 32 is not maintainable - Goa
(Prohibition of Further Payment and Recovery of Rebate
Benefits) Act, 2002.
                                                                  D
     The Legislature of the State of Goa enacted the Goa
(Prohibition of Further Payment and Recovery of Rebate
Benefits) Act, 2002 making provisions for recovery of
benefits under Notifications dated 15.5.1996 and 1.8.1996
 availed of by certain Low Tension, High Tension and              E
Extra High Tension electricity consumers, and to prohibit
any further payment under the said notifications. The
instant writ petitions were filed challenging the
 provisions of the said Act primarily on the grounds that
it sought to nullify the judgment of the Supreme Court
passed on 13.2.2001, affirming the view taken by the High         F
Court in its judgment dated 21.1.1999 and that the Act
also sought to give effect to the decision dated 191
24.4.2001 rendered by the High Court, which judgment
had the effect of overruling the judgment of the Supreme
Court passed on 13.2.2001, more so, when the said                 G
judgment was subject matter of appeal before the
Supreme Court. The stand of the respondent State was
that the Notifications dated 15.5.1996 and 1.8.1996 were
not authorized by law inasmuch as the Minister for Power
got the said notifications is~;ued at his own level without       H
    972    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 5 S.C.R.


A making a reference either to the Chief Minister·or the
  Council of Ministers or without consulting the Finance
  Department, as was mandatorily required under the
  Rules; that there was neither financial sanction nor
  budgetary provision nor cabinet approval as required
8 under Article 166(3) of the Constitution of India and,
  therefore, the notifications dated 15.05.1996 and
  01.08.1996 could not be said to be the decision of the
  State Government in the strict sense of law and, as such,
  the claims for rebate under these·Notifications which run
  into several crores of rupees could not be borne by the
C State Exchequer; and that since the two Notifications had
  illegally imposed a heavy burden on the State Exchequer,
  the State Legislature, keeping in view the public interest
  and its welfare, made the Act within its legislative and
  constitutional parameters.
D
       Dismissing the writ petitions, the Court
       HELD: 1.1. A statute.~ be invalidated or held
  unconstitutional on limited gro1,mds, viz., on the ground
E of incompetence of the Legislature which enacts it and
  on the ground that such statute breaches or violates any
  of the fundamental rights or other constitutional rights,
  and on no other grounds. [Para 15) [983-C-D]

        *Sanjeev Cok~ Manufacturing Company Vs. Mis. Bharat
F Coking Coal Ltd. & Anr. (1983) 1 SCR 1000 = (1983) 1    sec
   147 (172); State of A.P. vs. McDowell and Co. (1996) 3
   SCR 721 = (1996) 3 SCC 709; Ku/dip Nayar vs. Union of
   India and Ors . (2006) 5 Suppl. SCR 1 = (2006) 7 SCC 1,
 · referred to.                     '
G        1.2. In the instant case, the Legislature in its
    competence has enacted the Goa (Prohibition of Further
    Payment and Recovery of Rebate Benefits) Act, 2002, to
    achieve the purposes indicated therein. Having regard to
    the fact that the action in issuing the notifications dated
H
GOA GLASS FIBRE LTD. & ANR. v. STATE OF GOA 973
                AND ANR.

15.5.1996 and 1.8.1996 was unauthorized and wholly               A
illegal and that the parties could not be allowe~ to reap
the benefits of an illegal act, the State Legislature enacted
the Act impugned. By the said enactment, the Legislature
has imposed prohibition of further payments under the
Notifications dated 15.5.1996 and 1.8.1996, has provided         B
for recovery of rebate benefits from the beneficiaries and
has extinguished the State's liability under the two
Notifications. This exercise by the Legislature is
independent of and de hors the results of W.P No.316 of
1998 (decided by High Court on 19/24.4.2001) and can be          c
said to be uninfluenced by the said judgment. It was well
within the Legislative power of the State Legislature to
respond to the undisputed and disturbing facts, which
had enormous financial implication on the State's
finances, to enact the law with an object of remedying the       D
 unsatisfactory state of affairs which were known to the
Legislature. Thus, the intent and object of the State
Legislature in enacting the Act is clear and unassailable.
 [para 16-19] [983-D-H; 984-A-H]
     1.3. The Act is not aimed at giving effect to the order     E
dated 19/24.4.2001 passed by the High Court in W.P
No.316 of 1998 nor is it passed because the special leave
petition is pending before this Court, but has been
passed with the object or aim to sustain the State Coffers
and to prevent further abuse and payment out of the              F
State funds. It has been enacted in the larger public
interest to save the Public Exchequer from being drained
off. These amounts always belonged to the State and,
therefore, it has every right to recover the same, by
resorting to legislative measures within the parameters          G
of the constitution, from the beneficiaries who cannot be
permitted to retain the benefits. It is no doubt true that the
Judgment dated 19/24.04.2001 is in appeal before this
Court in a batch of special leave petitions, but validity of
the Act impugned does not depend upon the result of the          H
    974     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 5 S.C.R.

A said petitions. The Act must stand or fall on its own
  strength. [para 20 and 24] (985-B-C; 988-D-E]
         1.4. It is evident that the object of the Act is not to
    undo or reverse the judgments either of this Court or of
    the High Court. On a reading of the Act as a whole, it does
8
    not appear that the Legislature seeks to undo any
    judgment or any directions contained therein. Therefore,.
    no exception can be taken to the constitutionality of the
    Act impugned on the ground that it seeks to undo or
    reverse any judgment. In the earlier round of litigation,
C   this Court and the High Court merely dealt with and
    interpreted the rights of the consumers to recover and be
    paid the rebate on electricity tariff in view of the two
    notifications (dated 15.5.1996 and 1.8.1996) being in force.
    This Court and the High Court in those proceedings did
D   not deal with or decide validity of the said notifications.
    What the Legislature seeks to do by the Act impugned is
    to cure the defect of any kind and thereby to ensure that
    the public funds are not drained off and it is in larger
    public interest that the Act is enacted. The Act which has
E   been passed with a view to subserve the public cause,
    to prevent abuse of public exchequer, to remedy the
    fraud played by an individual on the public exchequer,
    to recover the amounts paid under the two Notifications
    and to prevent further loss of pubic funds, cannot be
F   termed as unconstitutional. It cannot, therefore, be said
    that the Act impugned is aimed at nullifying the judgment
    of this Court passed on 13.02.2001, affirming the view
    taken by High Court of Bombay Panaji Bench, in its
    judgment dated 21.01.1999. [para 18 and 22] (984-A-C;
G   987-C, E-G]
      2.1. It is a well settled law that the legislature can
  render the judicial decision ineffective by enacting a valid
  law on the subject within its legislative field by removing
  the base on which the decision was rendered. [para 241
H [988-E]             .
GOA GLASS FIBRE LTD. & ANR. v: STATE OF GOA 975
                AND ANR.
    2.2. The impugned Act meets and satisfies the A
constitutional test completely. The Act also satisfies
parameters laid down by this Court in various-judgments.
Further the competence of the State legislature to enact
the Act impugned is traceable to Entry No. 38 in List Ill of
the VII Schedule to the Constitution of India. The B
competence of the State Legislature to enact the Act has
not been challenged. Therefore, the challenge made by
the petitioners to the constitutionality of the Act on this
ground must fall. [para 24] [988-E-G]
     3. So far as the challenge to the validity of the Act C
with reference to Article 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution is
concerned, no citizen is before this Court with a
complaint that his fundamental rights guaranteed under
Article 19(1 )(g) are violated by the Act. As regards the
challenge on the allegations of violation of Article 14 of D
the Constitution, the petitioners have laid no basis thereof.
There is nothing in the Act which suggests invidious
discrimination, unreasonable classification or manifest
violation of equality clause. In the absence of any valid
ground under Article 14, the writ petition under Article 32 E
itself is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The
Act impugned does not suffer from any invalidity and the
challenge made by the petitioners to its constitutionality
fails. [para 26-27] [989-B-E]
                                                           F
    S.S Bola Vs. B.D. Saldhana (1997) 2 Suppl. SCR 507 =
AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3127 and Indian Aluminium &
Others Vs. State Of Kera/a 1996(1) SCC 637.

                   Case Law Reference:
                                                           G
    (1997) 2 Suppl. SCR 507 referred to         para 11
    (1996) 1 sec 637          referred to       para 11
    (1996) 3 SCR 721          referred to       para 15
                                                           H
    976       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 5 S.C.R.


A         (2006) 5 Suppl. SCR 1         referred to          para 15

          (1983) 1 SCR 1000             referred to          para 23

        CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No.
    200 of 2002.
B
          .Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

                                   WITH

          W.P. (C) No. 199 of 2002
c       F.S. Nariman, L.N. Rao, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Shyam
    Diwan, Deeptakir:th Verma, Subash Sharma, S. Karpe., Binu
    Tamta, A.Subhashini, Mohit Abraham, Dhruv Mehta, T.S.
    Sabasish (for K.L. Mehta & Co.}, Santosh Paul, M.J. Paul, K.K.
    Bhat, Arvind Gupta, Sriharsh N. Bundela, Kavin Gulati, Rohina
D   Nath, Rohan Dhiman, Rashmi Singh, Sharuk Narang, Ashu
    Kansai, Umesh Kumar Khaitan for the appearing parties .

       . The Judgme_Q_t of the Court was delivered by

E        H.L. DATTU, J. 1. The above writ petitions are filed under
    Article 32 of the Constitution of India, inter alia calling in
    question the vires and Constitutional validity of "The Goa
    (Prohibition of Further Payment and Recovery of Rebate
    Benefits) Act, 2002 (hereina;ter referred to c:s 'the Act')
    enacted by the Legislature of the State of Goa. The petitioners
F   seek a declaration from this court that the Act is ultra vires of
    the Constitution of India and in the alternative seek a limited
    declaration that Sections 2,3,5 and 6 of the Act are
    unconstitutional and liable to be struck down.

G        2. The Act is attacked as unconstitutional mainly on the
    following grounds:

                 That it seeks to nullify a judgment of this Court dated
                 13.02.2001 affirming the view taken by High Court

H
GOA GLASS FIBRE LTD. & ANR. v. STATE OF GOA 977
         AND ANR. [H.L. DATTU, J.]

        of Bombay Goa Bench, in its judgment dated A
        21.01.1999.

        That it seeks to give effect to the decision of the
        High Court of Bombay dated 19/24th April 2001,
        which judgment has the effect of over ruling the B
        judgment of this Court dated 13.02.2001.

        That it seeks to give effect to the judgment of High
        Court of Bombay Panaji Bench, dated 19/24th April
        2001, when the said judgment is the subject matter
        of appeal before this Court in several Special C
        Leave Petitions and thus seeks to frustrate the rights
        of the petitioners herein under Article 136 of the
        Constitution of India.

        That it seeks to take away the fundamental rights D
        guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 14 and
        19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

        That it is contrary to plethora of judgments of this
        Court.
                                                               E
        That as an Explanatory Memorandum and the
        Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act relies
        upon the decision of the High Court of Bombay
        Panaji Bench, rendered on 19/24th April 2001 which
        held the Notifications dated 15.5.1996 and 1.8.1996 F
        were issued without complying with the
        requirements of Article 166 (3) of the Constitution
        of India, when the very judgment is under appeal
        before this Court and the State without getting a
        Judgment rendered by this Court and frustrating G
        adjudication by this Court has passed the Act
        impugned.

        That the Act does not seek to validate any action
        which has been held to be invalid by any Court of
                                                               H
    978      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2010] 5 S.C.R.

A               Law, but only seeks to nullify the judgment of this
                Court [under Section 2 of the Act].

                That the Act under Section 3 gives power to the
                State to recover rebate already given to consumer
                 like petitioners, which grant has already been
B
                upheld by the High Court by its judgment dated
                21.1.1999 and affirmed by this Court by its
                judgment dated 13.2.2001.

                That the Act is unconstitutional because of non-
c               application of mind, as Section 5 thereof speaks
                of consequences of non-refund and Section 2 which
                prohibits further payments.

                That the Act seeks to nullify a judgment of this Court
D               and to give effect to judgment of High Court which
                has the effect of overruling the judgment of this
                Court, inasmuch as, the law of validation as settled
                by this Court in a catena of decisions stipulates that
                the Legislature is not competent to nullify a judgment
                of a Court of competent jurisdiction except where
E
                the judgment is rendered by a Court of law on the
                basis of any invalidity or illegality in the Act because
                of which the Statute or Act is declared invalid, in
                which event the Legislature is Competent to enact
                a validating Act by removing the basis of that
F               invalidity or illegality in the earlier Statute. If the
                Legislature chooses to enact a law only for the
                purpose of nullifying a judgment that the same is
                impermissible.

G         3. The respondent - State of Goa has joined issues with
    petitioners and has filed a detailed Counter-Affidavit, inter alia,
    in support of the constitutionality of the impugned Act.

         4. The State in its Counter-Affidavit after setting out the
H   factual background leading to the issue of the Notifications
GOA GLASS FIBRE LTD. & ANR. v. STATE OF GOA 979
         AND ANR. [H.L. DATTU, J.]
                                                              I

date:d 15.05.1996 and 01.08.1996 and the filing of Writ Petition     A
No. 316 of 1998 and the juqgment of the High Court of Bombay
Panaji Bench therein, has contended, that, the State deemed
it expedient not only to prohibit any further payment under the
said Notification, but also deemed it expedient to recover the
benefitfi already availed of by certain consumers including the      B
petitioners in terms of the earlier Notifications, having regard
to the fact "that the action in issuing the notifications was
unauthorized and wholly illegal and that the parties could not
be allowed to reap the benefits of an illegal act. It is stated by
the respondent State, that, with this intent and object, the State   c
Assembly passed the Bill known as Goa (Prohibition of Further
Payments and Recovery of Rebate Benefits) Bill 2002, which
was introduced in the House on 16.01.2002.

      5. With reference to the principal contention of the
petitioners that the Act impugned is unconstitutional and it         D
seeks to nullify the judgment of this Court in G.R. !spat's case,
the State contends that the Act impugned is constitutionally valid
and has been passed by the Legislature keeping in view the
objects behind the Bill; that even assuming but not admitting in
any manner that the impugned Act nullifies the judgment of this      E
Court, the Legislature under the Constitution of India has the
power to enact a law which may result in nullifying the Judgment
or Order passed by the Courts, if the public interest and public
welfare demands the Legislature to exercise its legislative
power within the constitutional parameters as held by this Court     F
in various pronouncements on the issue.

     6. It is further stated that what is sought to be achieved by
the impugned Act is to declare that the two notifications dated
15.05.1996 and 01.08.1996 as illegal, unauthorized, and to           G
prohibit any further payments thereunder, in order to save public
exchequer from getting denuded of its coffers. It is further
stated, that, the decision of the State Government to issue
Notifications mentioned above was not authorized by law in as
much as the Council of Ministers had rescinded the Notification
                                                                     H
    980     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 5 S.C.R.


A   and despite this, the Power Minister himself had issued a
    Notification at his own level without making a reference to either
    the Chief Minster or the Council of Ministers or consulting the
    Finance Department as mandatorily required under the Rules
    of Business. The decision of the then Minister for Power to
B   issue the Notifications was wholly unauthorized as he had no
    authority in law to issue them at his level and as the subject
    matter was required to be placed before the Cabinet in view
    of the huge financial implication involved therein and in view of
    the fact that the Cabinet had earlier rescinded the Notification
C   giving rebate and any modification or variation of such decision
    of the Council of Ministers, it had to place it before the Council
    of Ministers in view of the Business Rules framed under Article
    166 (3) of the Constitution of India. The two notifications IJ_ad
    imposed a heavy burden on the State Exchequer and under the
D   Rules Of Business, concurrence of Finance Department of the
    State Government was mandatory and there was neither
    concurrence of the said Department. nor was there any
    reference of the said Notifications to the said Department. The
    then Power Minister had made a note on the file concerned that
    he had consulted the. Chief Minister which was found to be false
E   as per the police investigation conducted and that the then
    Chief Minister had clearly stated that neither he was ever
    consulted by the Power Minister nor was the file ever shown to
    him and that this fact was taken note of by the High Court of
    Bombay Panaji Bench in its Judgment dated 19/24.04.2001 in
F   Writ Petition No. 316 of 1998, which is appealed against and
    pending in SLP (Civil) No. 4233 of 2001 before this Court.

      7. The State also contends, that, the impugned Act is not
  aimed at giving effect to the Order of the High Court of Bombay
G dated 19/24.04.2001 in W.P No.316 of 1998 nor is it passed
  because the abovementioned Special Leave Petition is
  pending before this Court, but has been passed and aimed to
  save the coffers of the State and to prevent further abuse and
  payment out of the State Funds which the State can ill afford.
H The State had lost almost an amount of about Rs.16 Crores
GOA GLASS FIBRE LTD. & ANR. v. STATE OF GOA 981
         AND ANR. [H.L. DATTU, J.]

and a further sum of Rs.50 Crores of public money might have           A
to be paid and there was neither any budgetary allocation nor
any provision made for such payments and therefore instead
of the monies coming into the State Exchequer by way of
receipts by Government in accordance with Article 266 (1) of
the Constitution of India, these payments were sought to be            B
diverted to the private industrialists by virtue of the two
notifications mentioned above and with a view to put an end to
this illegality the impugned Act has been enacted in the larger
public interest to safe the Public Exchequer from being drained
~                                                                      c
      8. The State also contends, that, this Court and the High
Court in the earlier round of litigation have dealt with and
interpreted the rights of the Consumer to be paid the rebate
on electricity tariff in view of the two notification being in force
and not their validity and that such benefits could not be             D
withdrawn by a mere administrative circular. In fact what was
challenged in those writ petitions was the administrative order
of the Chief Electrical Engineer dated 31.03.1998 and that the
High Court held in those writ petitions that the two notifications
could not be withdrawn by a mere administrative Order and it           E
was on that basis, the High Court had sustained those two
notifications. Now what is sought to be done by the present
legislation, it is contended by the State, to cure the defect of
any kind and thereby to ensure that public funds are not drained
by resorting to dubious methods and it is in larger public interest    F
that this Act is enacted.

     9. It is reiterated by the State, that, the State of Goa is
facing financial crunch and it is not possible for the State
Government to bear such financial burden and therefore it is           G
imperative that the amounts paid are recovered and further loss
of public funds avoided and its payment prohibited and that it
is on this ground that the legislation impugned has been
enacted.

     10. The State reiterates that there is nothing illegal about      H
    982      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010) 5 S.C.R.


A   the impugned legislation and that the same has been passed
    in the larger public interest and with a view to sub serve the
    pubic cause and to prevent abuse of public exchequer and to
    reme€1y the fraud played by an individual Minister on the public
    exchequer. It is further urged by the State Government that the
B   balance of interest is in favour of the State as the petitioners
    on their own showing have become the beneficiaries of an
    illegal act of an individual Minister which cannot be allowed.

        11. The State further asserts in response to the challenge
C made by the petitioners to the validity of the Act, that, it is a
  well settled law that the legislature can render the judicial
  decision ineffective by enacting a valid law on the subject within
  its legislative field by removing the base on which the decision
  was rendered and that the impugned Act squarely meets and
  satisfies the Constitutional Test and parameters laid down by
D this Court in various judgments and as illustration have referred
  to the Judgments of this Court in the case of S.S Bola Vs. B.D.
  Saldhana reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3127 and
  Indian Aluminium & Others Vs. State Of Kerala reported in
  1996(1) SCC 637. It is reiterated by the State, that, the State
E Legislature is 80mpetent to enact the Act impugned under Entry
  38 of List Ill to the Vllth Schedule of the Constitution of India.

         12. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder which reiterates
    more or less what is stated in the Writ Petition. In short, in the
F   rejoinder the petitioner seeks to counter the reason and other
    grounds offered by the State Government in support of the
    Legislation impugned. It also disputes the correctness of certain
    statements made by the 'State Government in its affidavit in
    reply to the Writ Petition.

G        13. We have heard learned senior counsel Shri F.S.
    Nariman for the petitioners and Dr. Rajeev Dhavan and Shri
    Shyam Diwan, learned senior counsel for State of Goa. We
    also had the advantage of going through several rulings of this
    court cited by the learned counsels.
H
GOA GLASS FIBRE LTD. & ANR. v. STATE OF GOA 983
         AND ANR. [H.L. DATTU, J.]

      14. The Act impugned is attacked principally on the               A
ground, that, it seeks to nullify a judgment of this Court dated
13.02.2001, affirming the view taken by High Court of Bombay
Panaji Bench, in its judgment dated 21.01.1999 and that it
seeks to give effect to the decision of the High Court of Bombay
dated 19/24th April 2001, which judgment has the effect of over         B
ruling the judgment of this Court dated 13.02.2001, more so
when the said judgment is the subject matter of appeal before
this Court in several Special Leave Petitions and thus seeks
to frustrate the rights of the petitioners herein under Article 136
of the Constitution of India.                                           c
     15. It is well settled that a Statute can be invalidated or held
unconstitutional on limited grounds viz., on the ground of the
incompetence of the Legislature which enacts it and on the
ground that it breaches or violates any of the fundamental rights
or other Constitutional Rights and on no other grounds. (See            D
State of A.P. vs. McDowell and Co., [(1996) 3 SCC 709] 1
Ku/dip Nayar vs. Union of India and Ors., [(2006) 7 SCC 1].

     16. The scheme of the Act appears to be simple. The Act
imposes a Prohibition [under Section 2], requires recovery              E
[under Section 3] and "extinguishes" all liabilities of the State
that accrue or arise from the Notifications dated 15.05.1996
and 01.08.1996.

     17. From the language of the Act it becomes clear that the
                                                                        F
Act is not influenced by the out ~ome of the Judgment of the
High Court in Manohar Parrikar's case. By the enactment, the
Legislature has imposed prohibition of further payments under
the Notifications, provides for recovery of rebate benefits from
the beneficiaries and extinguishes the State's Liability under
the Notifications mentioned supra. This exercise by the                 G
Legislature is independent of and de hors the results of the PIL
of Manohar Parrikar and can be said to be uninfluenced by the
said judgment. It was well within the Legislative power of the
State to respond to the undisputed and disturbing facts which
                                                                        H
    984     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 5 S.C.R.


A   had enormous financial implication on the State's Finances to
    enact the Law with an object of remedying the unsatisfactory
    state of affairs which were known to the Legislature.

       18. That the object of the Act is not to undo or reverse the
8 judgments of either this Court or that of the High Court. On a
  reading of the Act as a whole, it does not appear that the
  Legislature seeks to undo any judgment or any directions
  contained therein. As observed earlier the Act imposes a
  Prohibition [under Section 2], requires recovery [under Section
C 3] and "extinguishes" all liabilities of the State that accrue or
  arise from the Notifications dated 15.05.1996 and 01.08.1996.
  Therefore, no exception can be taken to the constitutionality of
  the Act impugned, on the ground, that it seeks to undo or
  reverse any judgment. The Legislature in its competence has
  enacted the Act to achieve the purposes indicated therein and
D not to frustrate any judgment of any court including that of this
  Court. It is to be noted that State Legislature was competent
  to enact the Act in its present form even before the judgment
  of the High Court in the PIL and the fact that it has come after
  the judgment in PIL does not render it unconstitutional on the
E ground that it seeks to nullify the judgment of this Court in the
  earlier proceedings.

        19. The State, in the factual background leading to the
  issue of the Notifications dated 15.5.1996 and 01.08.1996 and
F the filing of Writ Petition No. 316 of 1998 and the judgment of
  the High Court of Bombay Panaji Bench therein, thought it fit
  and expedient to prohibit any further payment under the said
  Notifications and to recover the benefits already availed of by
  certain consumers including the petitioners towards the rebate
G in terms of these two notifications and having regard to the fact
  that the action in issuing the notifications was unauthorized and
  wholly illegal and that the parties could not be allowed to reap
  the benefits of an illegal act enacted the Act impugned. Thus
  the intent and object of the State Legislature in enacting the Act
  impugned is clear and unassailable. Therefore, the contention
H
GOA GLASS FIBRE' LTD. & ANR. v. STATE OF GOA 985
         AND ANR. [H.L. DATTU, J.]

of the petitioners that the Act impugned is unconstitutional and        A
it seeks to nullify the judgment of this Court requires to be
rejected.

     20. The impugned Act is not aimed at giving effect to the
Order of the High Court of Bombay dated 19/24.04.2001 in W.P            B
No.316 of 1998 nor is it passed because the abovementioned
Special Leave Petition is pending before this Court, but has
been passed with an object or aim to sustain the State Coffers
and to prevent further abuse and payment out of the State
Funds. It has been enacted in the larger public interest to save        C
the Public Exchequer from being drained off. These amounts
always belonged to the State and, therefore, it has every right
to recover the same, by resorting to legislative measures within
the parameters of the Constitutional provision from the
beneficiaries who cannot be permitted to retain the benefits.
                                                                        D
      21. The impugned Act is not aimed at giving effect to the
order of the High Court of Bombay dated 19/24.04.2001 in W.P
No.316 of 1998 as has been argued by the learned senior
counsel for the petitioner. It is not passed because the
abovementioned Special Leave Petition is pending before this            E
Court. It has been passed with an aim to sustain the State
Coffers and to prevent further abuse and payment out of the
State's Exchequer. It is placed on record by the State
Government, that, the coffers of the State had already lost an
amount of almost 16 Cron:is whic'h the State could not afford           F
and a further sum of Rs. 50 Crores of public money would have
been lost, had it not been checked and prevented by the Act
impugned. In this regard it is necessary take notice of the
reiteration of the State in its affidavit that the earlier affidavits
filed for and on behalf of the State Government before the High         G
Court in the earlier round of litigations did not reflect correct and
true factual position, It is stated by the State Government that
there was neither financial sanction nor budgetary provision nor
cabinet approval as required under Article 166(3) of the
Constitution of India and therefore the two notifications dated
                                                                        H
15.05.1996 and 01.08.1996 in issue could not be said to be
    986     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 5 S.C.R.


A the decision of the State Government in the strict sense of law
  and the claims for rebate under these Notifications which run
  into several Crores of Rupees could not be borne by the
  exchequer, more so when they are devoid of any legal sanctity
  and that it was impossible for the State to meet or bear such
B an e:normous liability of such a magnitude. The respondent
  State in its affidavit draws support from certain observations
  from the Judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated 19/
  24.04.2001, to say that the Notifications mentioned above were
  non-est and action taken thereunder was null and void. It Is the
c star::! of the State, that, the High Court in W.P. No. 316of1998
  has dlso dealt with the issue as to why the State had failed to
  bring befqre the High Court in the earlier batch of Writ Petition-
  decided 6n 21.01.1999, wherein the High Court upheld the
  power of the State Government to withdraw the rebate by
  invoking provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act.
0
  According to the State, the High Court in the earlier round of
  litigation gave a decision as regards the financial crunch faced
  by the Court and that the affidavits filed for and on behalf of the
  Sta.te Government therein by the then Chief Electrical Engineer
E of Goa Mr. T. Nagarajan, 'Nho as disclosed from the police
  i9.vestigations was himself a supporter of the illegal act of abuse
  of power and he could not be expected to place all facts before
  the High Court. The State further contends that the High Court
  in its judgment in W.P No. 316 of 1998, has noted that even
  the attempts to have the Notifications ratified by the cabinet
F failed and there being legal dissent, the Cabinet refused to
  ratify the decision and withdrew the same. Therefore, it cannot
  be said that the State had enacted the Act impugned to give
  effect to the judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 316
  of 1998.
G
      22. It is also placed on record that there was neither any
  budgetary allocation nor any provision made for such payments
  and these payments were sought to be diverted to the private
  industrialists by virtue of the two notifications mentioned above
H and with a view to put an end to this illegality, the impugned
GOA GLASS FIBRE LTD. & ANR. v. STATE OF GOA 987
         AND ANR. [H.L. DATTU, J.]
Act has been enacted in the larger public interest to save the          A
Public Exchequer from being drained off. These amounts
always belonged to the State Government and the State had
every right to recover the same, by resorting to legislative
measures from the beneficiaries of an illegal Act, who cannot
be allowed to retain the benefits. In the earlier round of litigation   B
before the High Court, the State had taken the stand that there
was financial crunch being faced by the State Government and
that it was the primary reason for the State Government to
withdraw the rebate. This Court and the High Court in the earlier
round of litigation merely dealt with and interpreted the rights        c
of the Consumer to recover and be paid the rebate on electricity
tariff in view of the two notifications being in force. This Court
and the High Court in those proceedings did not deal with or
decide their validity. The question there was, whether the
benefits granted by the Notifications could be withdrawn by a           D
mere administrative circular of the Chief Electrical Engineer
dated 31.03.1.998 and the High Court held in those writ petitions
that the two notifications could not be withdrawn by a mere
administrative Order and on that premise the High Court had
directed the State to pay the amounts and this Court confirmed
the same in its Order. What the Legislature seeks to do by the
                                                                        E
Act impugned is to cure the defect of any kind and thereby to
ensure that public funds are not drained and it is in larger public
interest that this Act is enacted. The Act which has been passed
in the larger public interest and with a view to sub serve the
public cause and to prevent abuse of public exchequer . and to          F
remedy the fraud played by an individual on th~ public
exchequer and to recover the amounts paid under these two
Notifications and to prevent further loss of pubic funds cannot
be termed as unconstitutional. It cannot therefore be said that
the Act impugned is aimed at nullifying a judgment of this Court        G
dated 13.02.2001, affirming the view taken by High Court of
Bombay Panaji Bench, in its judgment dated 21.01.1999. It can
not also be said that the Act impugned seeks to give effect to
the decision of the High Court of Bombay dated 19/24th April
2001, in Writ Petition No 316 of 1998.                                  H
    gag      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 5 S.C.R.


A       23. The Act stands totally on a different footing and the
  judgment of the High Court dated 19/24.04.2001 has no
  bearing on it. The Act stands independent of the judgment of
  the High Court and its validity cannot be tested on these
  grounds. The petitioners have strongly relied upon the different
B stands allegedly taken by the State in the earlier proceedings
  and the present proceedings in support of their challenge to the
  constitutionality of the Act. This. Court in Sanjeev Coke
  Manufacturing Company Vs. Mis. Bharat Coking Cool Ltd &
  Anr, [(1983) i SCC 147 (172)], has held that the validity of the
c Legislation is not to be judged by what is stated in an affidavit
  filed on behalf of the State and that it should fall or stand on
  the strength of its provisions.

          24. It is no doubt true that the Judgment dated 19/
    24.04.2001 is in appeal before this Court in a batch of Special
D   Leave Petitions and the validity of the impugned Act does not
    depend upon the result of the said Special Leave Petitions. In
    our opinion, the Act must stand or fall on its own strength. It
    cannot also be said that the Act seeks to give effect to the
    judgment dated 19/24.04.2001 of the High Court having regard
E   what the State aims at or seeks to achieve by it. It is 'a well
    settled law that the legislature can render the judicial decision
    ineffective by enacting a valid law on the subject within its
    legislative field by removing the base on which the decision was
    rendered. The impugned Act meets and satisfies the
F   Constitutional Test· completely. The Act also satisfies
    parameters laid down by this Court in various judgments.
    Further the competence of the State Legislature to enact the
    Act impugned is traceable to Entry No. 38 in List Ill to the VII
    Schedule of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have not
G   challenged the competence of the State Legislature to enact
    the Act impugned. Therefore, the challenge made by the
    petitioners to the constitutionality of the Act on this ground must
    fall.

       25. The next contention urged by the petitioners is that, the
H Act does not seek to validate any action which has been held
 GOA GLASS FIBRE LTD. & ANR. v. STATE OF GOA 989
          AND ANR. [H.L. DATTU, J.]

to be invalid by any Court of Law, but only seeks to nullify the        A
judgment of this Court. This contention should also fail for the
reasons already explained in the preceding paragraphs.

      26. The next contention of the petitioners is that the
impugned Act is unconstitutional, because it seeks to take away
                                                                        B
the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under
Article 14 and 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution of India. While the
argument based on Article 19(1 )"(g) of the Constitution of India
was not urged seriously by the petitioners and rightly so, as no
citizen is before this Court with a complaint that his fundamental
rights gl)aranteed under this Article of the Constitution is violated   C
by the State under the Act impugned. As regards the challenge
to the validity of the Act on the allegations of violation of Article
14 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have laid no basis
thereof. There is nothing in the Act which suggests invidious
discrimination, unreasonable classification or manifest violation       D
of equality clause. In the absence of any valid ground under
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Writ Petition under
Article 32 itself is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

     27. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion         E
that the Act impugned does not suffer from any invalidity and
the challenge made by the petitioners to its constitutionality fails.
Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed without any order
as to costs.

R.P.                                    Writ Petitions dismissed.