V. Ramaswami, J.
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is a peculiar suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of damages against the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Collector of Timchirapalli.
2. The facts leading to the filing of case may be stated shortly. When there was a cyclone in this State sometime in 1978, the Tamil Nadu Legislature passed the Tamil Nadu Cyclone and Flood Affected Areas Cultivating Tenants (Temporary Relief) Act, 1978. The Act itself specified certain areas as cyclone and flood affected areas and included those places to the Schedule. One of the villages included in Krishnarayapuram in Kulitalai Taluk, which is shown as 525 in the Schedule. It is stated that the plaintiff owns an extent of 1.70 acres in the village of Krishnarayapuram, Kulitalai Taluk, The suit has been filed on the ground that though Krishnarayapuram village is not one of those affected by the floods, by a fraud on the Constitution, they have included this village also, as if it is also affected. The further case of the plaintiff is that the reports of the Revenue Officers in this regard to the Government, as if Krishnarayapuram village also is affected by the floods is also a fraud. The plaintiff also pleaded that a village called Sithalavai, a revenue village in Kulitalai Taluk, which is only 1 1/2 kms from Krishnarayapuram is not included in the Schedule. The flood and the cyclone were all throughout the District of Tiruchirapalli. While Sithalavai, which is also one of the villages in the district is omitted, Krishnarayapuram has been included. That offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. The plaintiff also contended that there was absolutely no reason for enacting the impugned Act, that it was also not necessary, because if really there were floods and cyclone, the prices of the commodities will become higher and that the tenants will be in a position to make up the loss, if any, by the floods.
4. I am at a loss to find how such a suit could be maintained at all in a civil Court. The motive for the legislation is irrelevant and could not be gone into even while we consider the question of validity of an enactment. The Constitution has prescribed certain limitations on legislative powers. They are with reference to legislative entries and the fundamental rights. if there is no violation of the constitutional provisions, there can be no question of the validity of the enactment. It is true, if there is a fraud on the Constitution by enacting a legislation, purporting to be under the Constitution, but really not authorised, that could be questioned. But that is not on the ground of such a factual statement of the existence or otherwise of flood situation in any part of the country. The court below therefore, rightly dismissed the suit. The second appeal accordingly fails and it is dismissed. There will be no order as costs.