Skip to content


Pioneer Kumaraswamy College, Represented by Its Correspondent, the Chief Educational Officer Vs. the Central Scientific Supplies Company, Represented by Its Managing Director, M.V. Rangachari - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1982)2MLJ119
AppellantPioneer Kumaraswamy College, Represented by Its Correspondent, the Chief Educational Officer
RespondentThe Central Scientific Supplies Company, Represented by Its Managing Director, M.V. Rangachari
Excerpt:
.....is not liable, merely because of the existence of a provision like proviso in the act ii of 1981, under section 1(a) of section 2, that is the amendment under section 30 of the tamil nadu private colleges (regulation) act, 1976, which reads as follows:.....court had completely overlooked the amended provision of section 30 of the act viz., the tamil nadu private colleges (regulation) act, 1976 (president's act xix of 1976) by the act (ii of 1981) viz., the tamil nadu private colleges (regulation) amendment act, 1980. by the act ii of 1981, the provision of section 30 as it stood at the time of the commencement be came redically changed as follows:amendment of section 30, president's act (xix of 1976)--in section 30 of the tamil nadu private colleges (regulation) act, 1976 (president's act xix of 1976):(1) in sub-section (3), in the proviso; for the words 'five years', the words 'ten years' shall be substituted.(2) in sub-section (4), in clause (b)-(a) sub-clause (i) the word 'and' occurring at the end shall be omitted.(b) after.....
Judgment:

S. Swamikkannu, J.

1. This is a revision petition in which an interesting point is imbedded relating to the liability of the Government regarding the satisfaction of a decree that had been passed and become final against the administration of the College, which had been taken over by it when the suit had become the subject-matter of an execution petition.

2. In E.P. No. 591 of 1979 in O.S. No. 519 of 1974 on the file of the Court of learned Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee, an order was passed on 10th September, 1980 by the learned Principal District Munsif, that inasmuch as the college was the defendant, the contentions of the care-taker could not be upheld as the creditor is entitled for the decree amount and defendant-college cannot refuse to pay the amount and throw the liability from hither and thither. In the result, the petition for attachment and selling of the movable properties of the college was allowed and attachment was ordered by 7th October, 1980.

3. In the counter that was filed on behalf of the respondent in this R.P. No. 591 of 1979, it was contended inter alia that when the suit was filed and decree was passed, the college was in the management of a private individual. The college was taken over for a period of two years by the Government on a specific condition that the Government is not liable for payment of any interest or other dues payable by the previous management and that the impleading of the care-taker is not bona fide and illegal. It was further contended on behalf of the Government--care-taker of the educational institution--that the care -taker is not liable for the decree debt and the decree-holder can have his claim against the original defendant and as such the execution petition had to be dismissed. On the point whether the petition should be allowed, the execution Court came to the conclusion as above, setting out the following:

The suit was decreed on 28th October, 1978. The College was then represented by the correspondent Dr. Padmanabhan. Now the college is, being represented by the care-taker Government. The college is the party. The representative alone has changed. The creditor is entitled for the decree amount and the defendant-college cannot refuse to pay the amount, and throw the liability from hither to thither. Inasmuch as the college is the defendant the contentions of the respondent care-taker cannot be upheld.

4. The above order in E.P. No. 591 of 1979 is now attacked by the; revision petitioner on the ground that the lower Court had completely overlooked the amended provision of Section 30 of the Act viz., the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 (President's Act XIX of 1976) by the Act (II of 1981) viz., the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Amendment Act, 1980. By the Act II of 1981, the provision of Section 30 as it stood at the time of the commencement be came redically changed as follows:

Amendment of Section 30, President's Act (XIX of 1976)--In Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 (President's Act XIX of 1976):

(1) In Sub-section (3), in the proviso; for the words 'five years', the words 'ten years' shall be substituted.

(2) In Sub-section (4), in Clause (b)-

(a) Sub-clause (i) the word 'and' occurring at the end shall be omitted.

(b) after Sub-clause (i) as so amended, the following sub-clauses shall be inserted, namely:

(i-A) shall not be, bound by any liability incurred by the educational agency of a private college prior to the taking over of the management of the private colleges (including any borrowing from any person, or payment to the teachers and other persons employed in the private college or to any other person) and no claim in respect of such liability shall be enforced by any Court whether in execution of a decree or otherwise against the Government:

Provided that in computing the period of limitation for a suit, or any application for the execution of a decree, the time during which such proceeding, attachment, injunction, order or claim the enforcement of which is barred under this sub-section shall be excluded.

(i-B) may realise income from endowments and other receipts' due to the private college; and.

5. It is relevant, in this connection to note that this Act (II of 1981), which is known as the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1980, which was enacted by the Legislature of Tamil Nadu in the Thirty-first Year of the Republic of India, makes no provision relating to the retrospective effect of this provision by way of amendment to Section 30. This Act of the Tamil Nadu Legislature received the assent of the President on the 25th February, 1981 and the same had been published for general information in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, Extraordinary, dated 19th Masi, Rowthiri 2012--Tiruvalluvar Andu.

6. A close scrutiny of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1980 does not show that the amendments which had been brought in the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act of 1976 are to be given effect from 21st November, 1975 as it is submitted now on behalf of the Government, that the statement of objects and reasons for the coming into existence of this Act IT of 1981 was only on the basis of the decision to give effect to the proposed amendment, which amendment has become the enactment, Act III of 1981 with effect from 21st November, 1975, i.e., from the date on which the provisions of the said Act came into force. It is relevant to note that it is not the statement of objects and reasons that have to be given effect to by a Court of law but it is only the provisions of the Amendment Act that can be taken late consideration. If the amendment Act does not contain a provision, wherein it is specifically stated that the effect of the amendments contemplated under the Act II of 1981 have to be, given effect from 31st November, 1975, then, it is only the provision of the original enactment that was on the statute book of this State on the date of the claim made by the decree-holder regarding any liability incurred by the educational agency of a private college prior to the taking over of the management of the private college including any borrowing from any person or payment to the teachers and other persons employed in the private college or to any other person and no claim in respect of such liability shall be enforced by any Court in execution of a decree or otherwise against the Government. This provision under Section 2 of the Act II of 1981 is not specifically stated to be having retrospective effect from 21st November, 1975 on which date the original Act of 1976, viz., the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act of 1976 came into force. The existence of an object, which had resulted in the amendment Act II of 1981, being passed by the Legislature cannot be given effect to by a Court of law. It is only the provisions of the fullfledged enactment that has received the assent of the President and thereafter specifying a date on which the provisions of the said enactment had to be enforced, viz., whether it is from the date of the assent of the President or the date of the notification in the Official Gazette had to be actually taken into consideration for giving effect to the provisions of the enactment--whether it is original enactment or amending Act giving certain amending provisions to the original enactment.

7. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that there is no mention of any liability in the relevant provisions of the Act of 1976 and as such the liability now sought to be saddled on the shoulders of the Government should not be upheld because, it is only the administration of the college that has been undertaken and this is not with a specified undertaking that the Government would also be liable to satisfy the decree that might have been passed against the administration of the college, the administration of which has been taken over by the Government. This Court has no hesitation to reject this contention as wholly unsustainable and untenable. The word 'assets' means and includes also 'liabilities'. Therefore, if there are enough funds available with the college or the college expects any funds in future to be augmented with respect to its actual financial state of affairs, it is but necessary that the valid decree had to be satisfied with the said funds. Merely because the Government had undertaken to take care of the administration of the college it does not absolve the care-taker administrative body, which is Government to argue that the enactment of 1976, has enabled it to put forth an argument that it is not liable, merely because of the existence of a provision like proviso in the Act II of 1981, under Section 1(a) of Section 2, that is the amendment under Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, which reads as follows:

Provided that in computing the period of limitation for a suit, or any application for the execution of a decree, the time during which such proceeding, attachment, injunction, order or claim the enforcement of which is barred under this sub-section shall be excluded.

It cannot be contended now that by means of this amending provision the period of limitation gets itself extended and as such no prejudice would be caused to the execution petitioner, viz., the petitioner in E.P. No. 891 of 1979 and he can afford to wait. The contention involving this point also cannot be upheld, because, this is also forming part of the amending Act II of 1981, which has got no retrospective effect since there is no provision in the Act II of 1981, giving retrospective effect to the provision of the said enactment, viz., to implement the provision of the amending Act from 21st November, 1976, which it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader as the age of this enactment coming into the statute book of Tamil Nadu.

8. Under the circumstances, there is absolutely no ground for interferring with the order that had been pronounced by the learned Principal District Munsif on 10th September, 1980 in E.P. No. 591 of 1979 in O.S. No. 519 of 1974. There is no merit in this revision petition. The revision petition is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //