The Madras High Court Bench here on Monday sought the Central government’s reply to a writ petition challenging the Constitutional validity of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance promulgated on September 22, 2015, permitting filing of cheque bounce cases in places where the cheques were presented for payment and not from where they were issued.
A Division Bench of Justices R. Sudhakar and V.M. Velumani directed standing counsel D. Saravanan to take notice on behalf of the Union Ministries of Finance and Law and obtain instructions from them by October 12.
C.R. Tamilvanan, managing director of a private granite company based in Dindigul, had filed the petition on the ground that the Centre ought not to have promulgated the ordinance after having withdrawn a Bill on the same subject from the Rajya Sabha on July 24.
Appearing for the petitioner, senior counsel P. Wilson said that the Centre initially got the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Bill 2015 passed by the Lok Sabha, where it enjoyed a majority, on May 13 this year and tabled it before the Rajya Sabha on the same day. Subsequently on June 10, the Union Cabinet cleared a proposal to promulgate an ordinance on the same subject since the Parliament was not in session then and it was notified in the gazette on June 15.
A little over a month thereafter, the monsoon session of the Parliament began on July 21. However, curiously, the Union Finance Minister moved a motion in the Rajya Sabha on July 21 to withdraw the Bill and it was withdrawn on July 24 with the concurrence of the Lok Sabha. In the meantime, the first ordinance also lapsed in accordance with the Article 123(2)(a) of the Constitution.
“The repetitive second ordinance promulgated on September 15 is contrary to the Constitutional scheme. Allowing re-promulgation of an ordinance, after the withdrawal of a Bill, would be nothing short of allowing the executive to sit in judgment over the decision of the legislature,” senior counsel claimed.
The repetitive second ordinance promulgated on September 15 is contrary to the Constitutional scheme: senior counsel for petitioner
