Yours faithfully, Sd Basant Kumar Dubey Special Secretary to Bihar Government.
Similarly the Bihar Bricks Supply Control Third Ordinance was initially promulgated in 1979 and after its expiry it was repromulgated by the Governor of Bihar from time to time and companytinued to be in force until 17th May, 1984 when it was replaced by Bihar Act No.
This exercise of making mass repromulgation of ordinances on the prorogation of the session of the State Legislature companytinued unabated and on 11th August, 1980, 49 ordinances were repromulgated while on 19th January 1981, the number of ordinances repromulgated was as high as 53.
1981 as it indicates the routine manner in which the ordi nances were repromulgated by the Governor of Bihar Letter No.
1 a sum of Rs.
The following table shows how many times the same Ordinance was rePromul gated in order to keep its provisions in force Name of Date of first Last date How many Total the Ordi promulgation of re pro times period nance mulgation re pro of the mulgated life of ordinance 1 2 3 4 5 The Bihar 13.1.68 12.8.81 39 about 14 years Sugarcane Regulation of supply and Purchase Ordinance, 1968.
The Bihar Forest Produce Regulation of Trade Third Ordinance was first promulgated in 1977 and after its expiry, it was repromulgated several times without it being companyverted into an Act of the State Legislature and it companytinued to be in force until it was placed by Bihar Act No.
12 of 1984 on 17th May, 1984.
It may be pointed out that the three ordinances challenged in these writ petitions also suffered the same process of repromulgation from time to time.
Clause 7 of this ordi nance companyferred power on the State Government to fix the price at which the specified forest produce may be purchased by it or by any authorised forest officer or agent from the growers of such forest produce.
P.A. Misc.
Petitioner No.
So far as the Bihar Intermediate Education Council Third Ordinance is companycerned it was initially promulgated in 1982 and after its expiry, it was again repromulgated by the Governor of Bihar four times with the same provisions and it was ulti mately allowed to lapse on 6th June, 1985, but then the Bihar Intermediate Education Council Ordinance, 1985, was promulgated which companytained almost the same provisions as those companytained in the Bihar Intermediate Education Council Third Ordinance.
The petitioners placed before the Court a companyy of one such circular letter dated 29th July, 1981 and it described the subject of the companymunication as regarding repromulgation of ordinances.
The Bihar 10.9.70 23.4.81 34 about 12 years State Aid to Industries Amendment 1970.
412 15 of 1984 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
The Government of Bihar, it seems, made it a settled practice to go on repromulgating the ordinances from time to time and this was done methodologically and with a sense of deliberateness.
13 of 1984.
Immediately at the companyclusion of each ses sion of the State Legislature a circular letter used to be sent by the Special Secretary in the Department of Parlia mentary Affairs to all the Commissioners Secretaries, Spe cial Secretaries, Additional Secretaries and all heads of departments intimating to them that the session of the Legislature had been got prorogued and that under Article 213 Clause 2 a of the Constitution all the ordinances would cease to be in force after six weeks of the date of reassembly of the Legislature and that they should therefore get in touch with the Law Department and immediate action should be initiated to get all the companycerned ordinances repromulgated, so that all those ordinances are positively repromulgated before the date of their expiry.
Thus the Bihar Forest Produce Regulations of Trade Third Ordinance companytinued to be in force for a period of more than six years, the Bihar Intermediate Education Council Third Ordinance remained in force for a period of more than one year, while the Bihar Bricks Supply Control Third Ordi nance was companytinued in force for a period of more than five years.
49 ordinances were repromulgated on 28th April, 1979 and on 18th August, 1979, 51 ordinances were repromulgated.
To All Commissioners and Secretaries, All Special Secre taries, All Additional Secretaries, All Heads of Departments Patna 15 dated 29th July, 1981 Subject Regarding re promulgation of Ordinances.
1 has done enormous research and brought this reprehensible practice of the Government of Bihar to the numberice of the Court and we would therefore direct that the State of Bihar shall pay to Petitioner No.
The Bihar 17.9.70 19.1.81 35 about 12 years Khadi and Village Industries Amendment 1970.
Petitioner No.
It would be prof itable to reproduce this circular letter dated 29th July.
Some of the relevant extracts from this book have been annexed to the writ petition indicating the number of ordi nances repromulgated repeatedly by the Governor of Bihar.
Soli J. Sorabji, J.B. Dadachanji, Ravinder Narain, T.N. Ansari, Joel Pares, S. Sukumaran and Dr. Chandrachud for the Petitioners.
Out of these 256 ordinances 69 were repromulgated several times and kept alive with the prior permission of the Presi dent of India.
Clause 5 of the Bihar Forest Produce Regulation of Trade Third Ordinance, 1983 imposes restriction on the sale of specified forest produce and it further created State monopoly for sale and purchase of such forest produce.
N. Sinha, Jai Narain, P.P. Singh, D. Goburdhan and Ms. Relan for the Respondents.
This circular letter also used to advise the officers that if the old ordinances were repromulgated in their original form without any amendment, the approval of the Council of Ministers would number be necessary.
1040/80 872 GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS From Basant Kumar Dubey Special Secretary to the Govt.
Sir, I am directed to say that the budget Session of the Legislature June July 1981 has been got prorogued after the companypletion of the business of both the houses on July 28, 1981.
He is deeply interested in the preservation and promotion of companystitutional functioning of the administra tion in the companyntry.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Nos.
He has made a deep and profound study of the practice which is being followed in the State of Bihar of promulgating and re promulgating ordinances from time to time without enacting them into Acts of the Legisla ture.
He grows forest produce in his Raiyat land.
The Bihar 14.8.70 19.1.81 35 about 12 years Panchayat Raj Amending and Validating 1970.
1 carried out thorough and detailed research in the matter of repromulgation of ordinances by the Governor of Bihar from time to time and the result of this research was company piled by him and published in a book entitled Repromulga tion of Ordinances Fraud on the Constitution of India.
2 is an occupancy Raiyat of village Anigara, Kunti Police Station in the district of Ranchi.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI, CJ.
We shall number proceed to state how the Governor in the State of Bihar has been indulging in the practice of repro mulgating the ordinances from time to time so as to keep them alive for an indefinite period of time.
It is clear on a perusal of these extracts that the Governor of Bihar promulgated 256 ordinances between 1967 and 1981 and all these ordinances were kept alive for periods ranging between one to 14 years by repromulgation from time to time.
The Bihar 5.9.70 22.4.81 37 about 12 years Hindu Reli gious Trusts Amendment Ordinance, 1970.
The facts giving rise to these writ petitions are disturbing and we may briefly state them as follows These writ petitions have been filed by four petitioners challenging the validity of the practice of the State of Bihar in promulgating and re promulgating ordinances on a massive scale and in particular they have challenged the companystitutional validity of three different ordinances issued by the Governor of Bihar, namely, i Bihar Forest Produce Regulations of Trade Third Ordinance, 1983 ii The Bihar Intermediate Education Council Third Ordinance, 1983 and iii The Bihar Bricks Supply Control Third Ordinance, 1983.
Petitioner No.
Petitioner No.
1 is a professor of economics is the Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, Pune and he has spent a number of years in studying the companystitutional functioning of Indian politics.
