Sushila N. Rungta Vs TRO (Supreme Court)
What has been argued by Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, is that considering that the Gold Control Act itself has been repealed without a saving clause, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would not apply for the reason that the objects and reasons show that the Act was sought to be repealed without any saving clause. He relied strongly upon the objects and reasons using the expression “regressive” and the fact that it has given rise to considerable dissatisfaction in the minds of the public as it has caused hardship and harassment to artisans and small self-employed goldsmiths. Therefore, according to him, the statement of objects and reasons clearly evinces a contrary intention as a result of which, nothing will survive the repeal of this Act. This being so, a show cause notice which has been upheld by the Delhi High Court would not survive.
Having heard learned counsel for both sides, we are of the view that the statement of objects and reasons makes it clear that over 22 years, the results achieved under the Act have not been encouraging and the desired objectives for which the Act has been introduced have failed. Following the advice of experts, who have examined issues related to the Act, the objects and reasons goes on further to state that this Act has proved to be a regressive measure which has caused considerable dissatisfaction in the minds of the public and hardship and harassment to artisans and small self-employed goldsmiths.
This being the case, we are of the opinion that the repeal simpliciter, in the present case, does not attract the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act as a contrary intention is very clearly expressed in the statement of objects and reasons to the 1990 repeal Act.
We find a similar situation in the present case. In point of fact, on going through the impugned judgment, it is clear that every time an amendment was made to the Defence of India Rules and/or repeal of the said rules had taken place, there was always an inbuilt savings clause. In fact, Section 116 of the Gold (Control) Ordinance No.6 of 1968 also made it clear that it went to the extent, in sub-section 2 thereof, by saving show cause notices which, ordinarily, are not saved even if Section 6 were to apply – See M. S. Shivananda vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Others, [1980] 1 SCR 684 following Director of Public Works & Anr. vs. Ho Po Sang & Ors., [1961] 2 All. ER 721.
This being the case, we are of the view that the show cause notice dated 01.06.1971, which is the subject matter of this appeal, no longer survives. In this view of the matter, the appeal is disposed of.
