Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SARKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, RAGUBAR DAYAL, J.R. MUDHOLKAR AND R.S. BACHAWAT, JJ.
State of M.P. and another, Appellants
Versus
Lal Bhargavendra Singh (dead) after him his Legal Representatives and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 738 of 1963.
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. Sen Senior Advocate (M/s. M. N. Shroff and I. N. Shroff, Advocates with him), for Appellants; Mr. G. S. Pathak, Senior Advocate (Mr. C. L. Lal, Advocate, with him), for Respondents Nos. 1 (a) to 1 (c); M/s. K. L. Hathi and R. N. Sachthey, Advocates for Respondent No. 2.
On 7-3-1948 the Ruler of Nagod State passed an order providing for allowance of Rs.650 per month to his brother L. The order was addressed to the Chief Minister of the State and directed him to do certain things. It started by reciting that financial position of L was deplorable and the Ruler felt it to be his duty to see that L did not experience difficulties in his advancing years and as no permanent arrangement had been made for him till then, the Ruler was making the order. Then followed the operative part of the order which was in the following terms. "I order that the Kothi in which he is at present residing be given to L for generation to generation and allowance of. Rs. 650 (Rupees six hundred and fifty) per month be granted; in addition to the same a tonga and a horse be given, the expenses for which shall be borne by himself and Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand), be granted to him so that he may be able to make improvements in agriculture and satisfy his debts (partly):"
Held: Every order of a Ruler is not a law made by him. The question whether it is so has to be determined in each case. The order in the present case was not a law. First, it was a direction to the Chief Minister and required him to do certain things. A direction to an officer to be carried out by him cannot be held to be a law. It cannot be so according to notions of modern jurisprudence. Various parts of the order were sent to the different departments of the Nagod Administration respectively concerned with them obviously with the object that they might be carried out. This indicated that even the Administration was not treating it as law for it would be difficult to imagine different parts of a law being communicated to different branches of the Administration. Further, the Revenue Minister directed the Accounts Officer to make a report regarding the provision to be made for the sum of Rs. 5,000 mentioned in the order. This is not how a law is carried out. Under the order a Kothi (house), a tonga (carriage) and horse and Rs. 5,000 in a lump were to be made available to L In regard to these things the order was only a grant. A grant is, of course, not a law. Now if the rest of the order was a grant the part providing for the monthly allowance, was also not a law, but was also intended to be a grant; the fact that the order provided for future payments could not make it a law.
Again, the recitals in the order put it beyond doubt that the Ruler was only discharging what he considered his moral obligation towards L. A law is never made for such reason. The fact that the money was to be paid out of the Stale Exchequer could not turn a directive or a grant into a law. The statement by the Ruler of Nagod that he had passed the order under his legislature powers did not conclude the matter. The internal evidence showed that the order was not a legislative Act. The order was an Executive Act of the Ruler providing for certain allowance to L. It was, therefore, competent to the President acting in his executive capacity to reduce it to a sum of Rs. 530 per month 1961 JLJ 820. REVERSED, AIR 1964 SC 1793 and AIR 1964 SC 1043, Relied on, AIR 1962 SC 1288, Distinguished. [Paras 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 & 15]
Judgement
SARKAR, J. : This appeal arises out of a suit filed on August 10, 1956 by Shri Lal Saheb Bhargavendra Singh, now deceased and represented by his legal representatives, against the Union of India, the State of Vidhya Pradesh, now merged in the State of Madhya Pradesh, and the Collector of Satna, for a declaration that he was entitled to receive an allowance of Rs. 650 per month from the Union of India. There was another claim but that depended on the declaratory relief claimed and need not, therefore, be referred to further. Shri Lal Saheb was the brother of the Ruler of the former Indian State of Nagod and he contended that the Ruler had by a law passed on March 7, 1948 provided for a allowance for him at the rate of Rs. 650 per month and that that law was binding on the defendants who had by an executive order illegally altered the amount of the maintenance. It was on this basis that the claim was made. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but was decreed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on appeal by the plaintiff. Hence this appeal.
2. Certain events that took place after March 7, 1948 when the allowance was fixed have now to be stated. On March 18, 1948, the Ruler of Nagod along with the Rulers of various neighbouring ruling States formed a new State called the Unit of State of Vidhya Pradesh into while the component States were merged thereby losing their sovereign status. Thereafter the United State merged in India by an agreement and pursuant thereto the Government of India took its administration on January 1, 1950. Its territories then became the Indian province of Vidhya Pradesh. The United State ceased to exist. On the promulgation of the Constitution on January 26, 1950 the Province of Vidhya Pradesh became a Part C State of Independent India and later from November 1, 1956 it was merged with the State of Madhya Pradesh.
3. By the agreement constituting the United State all laws in force in the constituent States were continued in force and likewise the laws of the United State were by a statutory order continued in force when it merged in India. Article 372 of the Constitution continued in force all laws which were in force in the territories of India immediately before the commencement of the Constitution. Each succeeding State could, of course, alter the laws which were so continued in force in spite of the change of sovereignty, by a law duly made by it. Neither the United State nor the Indian province of States which successively; administered the territories of the State of Nagod had made any law concerning any allowance to be paid to Shri Lal Saheb The Rajpramukh (the head) of the United State and the President of India had passed orders from time to time fixing his allowance at amounts lower than that at which it had been fixed by the Ruler of Nagod on March 7, 1948. These were, however, executive orders and not laws. They could not reduce the amount of allowance to Shri Lal Saheb fixed by the Ruler of Nagod on March 7, 1948, if he had done so by a law. All this is not in controversy.
4. The only question in this appeal is whether the order of the Ruler of Nagod of March 7, 1948 was a law. If it was it is not in dispute that the claim made in the suit must be upheld. The High Court observed that this Court had in various cases ending with the case of Madhaorao Phalke v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1961) 1 SCR 957, held that the line between the legislative, executive and judicial functions of absolute Rulers like the Ruler of Nagod was not at all clear-cut and an attempt to place an order of such a Ruler in one class or the other was of no practical importance. In this view of the judgments of this Court, the High Court said that it was futile to contend that the order of March 7, 1948 was an executive act of the Ruler and had not the force of law. The High Court, therefore, held that the allowance had been fixed by law and decreed the suit.
5. The question whether an order of a Ruler is law or no
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
