- Repeal effect of — Argument that the High Court should not have gone into the question of vires of a repealed Act repelled on the ground that merely a matter has become past and closed, the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Section 44 of the Interim Constitution Act is not ousted — This jurisdiction is multi dimensional. The High Court is empowered under section 44 to direct a public functionary to refrain from doing something which he is not permitted by law to do. The High Court is also empowered to declare an act or proceeding taken without lawful authority and of no legal effect — There is no question that the jurisdiction of the High Court may be considered to be ousted just because a certain act has been performed and has become a past and closed transaction — Holding so would in fact defeat the very purpose for which the writ jurisdiction has been conferred on the High Court — If the repealing Act had repealed the Regularisation Act from the date of its enactment this argument would have been available because in that case it might have been exercised in futility so decide whether the Regularisation Act was a valid law or not. Azad Government v. Muhammad Youns Tahir & other 1994 SCR 341 (D)
error: Content is protected !!