Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 156 (KAR)

Muniraikumar A. M. v. State of Karnataka

2014-02-14

A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. Challenge in these writ petitions is to the Karnataka Private Aided Educational Institutions Employees (Regulation of Pay, Pension and other Benefits) Bill 2014 (for short, 'Bill') passed by the Karnataka Legislative Assembly and the Karnataka Legislative Council. 2. It is unnecessary to notice the factual aspects and the rival contentions in view of the preliminary objection raised by Smt. Rafeeunisa, learned HCGP that the Court has no jurisdiction to determine whether the bill is a valid piece of legislation or not. In reply Sri. M.P. Sreekanth, learned advocate for the petitioners contended that the impugned bill having received the assent of the Governor on 11.02.2014 and having been published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 12.02.2014, the writ petition is maintainable, 3. It is common ground that the bill was agreed to without amendment by both the Chambers of the Karnataka Legislature. Till the bill received assent of the Governor it did not became an Act. Until a bill receives the assent of the Governor and is published in the Gazette, 'the Court cannot determine whether it is a valid piece of legislation or not' in as much as, the question whether either House of the Legislature has the right to discuss a bill laid before it, is a domestic matter regulated by the Rules of the House, as interpreted by its Hon'ble Speaker/Chairman and is not a matter with which a Court can interfere much less express any opinion. However, the Court can examine the matter after it becomes an Act. 4. In STATE OF BIHAR Vs. MAHARAJADHIRAJA SIR KAMESHWAR SINGH OF DARBHANGA AND OTHERS, 1952 SCR 889 , it has been held as follows : "It is true that the 'Legislature' of a State includes the Governor and that a bill passed by such Legislature cannot become a law until it receives the Governor's assent." It has been further held as follows :- "Similarly the word "law" is sometimes loosely used in referring to a bill. Article 31(4), for instance, speaks of a "bill" being reserved for the President's assent "after it has been passed" by the "legislature of a State" and of "the law so assented to." If the expression "passed by the legislature" were taken to mean "passed by the Houses of the legislature and assented to by the Governor" as Mr. Article 31(4), for instance, speaks of a "bill" being reserved for the President's assent "after it has been passed" by the "legislature of a State" and of "the law so assented to." If the expression "passed by the legislature" were taken to mean "passed by the Houses of the legislature and assented to by the Governor" as Mr. Somayya would have it understood, then, it would cease to be a "bill" and could no longer be reserved as such. Nor is the phrase "law so assented to" strictly accurate, as the previous portion of the clause makes it clear that what is reserved for the President's assent and what he assents to is a "bill" and not a law." 5. These writ petitions were filed on 10.02.2014. As on that day, the impugned bill had not received the assent of the Governor. There was no cause of action for the petitioners, on the day these writ petitions were filed. In the circumstances, these writ petitions being not maintainable cannot be entertained. Consequently, these writ petitions are rejected. However, this order would not deprive the petitioners, the right to question the Karnataka Private Aided Educational Institutions Employees (Regulation of Pay, Pension and other Benefits) Act, 2014 (Karnataka Act 7 of 2014) published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 12.02.2014.