ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The question that arises for our consideration in these cases is, whether amended Rule 50-A of M.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1962 which was brought into force by notification dated 23-1-1984 is valid. The question was answered against the State in the impugned judgment because the procedure under Section 95 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 had not been followed. On the short ground the increase of audit fees of the cooperative society was held to be bad since the rule was not laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly, that procedure being essential the rule will not come into force. Attacking this finding, the State has come up in appeal.

3. It is urged on behalf of the State that the High Court had not kept in mind the distinction between the case where rules come into force only after approval by the Legislature as against the mere laying of the rule on the table of the Legislative Assembly for purpose of information. The position has been succinctly laid down by this Court in Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana [(1979) 2 SCC 196 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 422]. Unfortunately, this vital aspect had been overlooked.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent in fairness, states that there can be no demur to the submission on law on behalf of the State. However, there are other points which require to be gone into in the writ petition. They were not decided by the High Court. Since the High Court chose to allow the writ petition on the short ground of the invalidity of the Rule, as it conceived. Besides the Schedule relating to levy of audit fee having been changed the matter is academic.

5. In order to determine the above controversy, we think it is worthwhile to quote Section 95(3) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The said section runs as under :

"95(3). All rules made under this Act shall be laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly."

In view of this it is clear the laying of the Rule 50-A before the Legislative Assembly was only for the purpose of information. When the State by virtue of the delegated powers under Section 95 makes Rules they would come into force only after they are laid before the Assembly and after its approval. That is not the case here. The purpose of such a procedure is that for the State to exercise control over delegated powers. The rule, is a subordinate legislation. The legislature which has plenary power of legislation retains the control over subordinate legislation. The distinction between the two kinds, has been clearly brought out by the decision of this Court cited on behalf of the State, namely Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. [(1979) 2 SCC 196 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 422]. We do not find any necessity to multiply the case-law.

6. The reliance on Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act by the High Court seems to be out of place. That section merely emphasises the ultimate control of the legislature over the subordinate legislation. The said section itself postulates the rule coming into force at once and as modified by the Legislature. Therefore, the civil appeals will have to be allowed.

7. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent herein the writ petition raises several grounds which the High Court thought that there was no necessity to go into, in view of invalidating Rule 50-A as stated above. These points, therefore, require to be gone into on merits and adjudicated upon. Though the Schedule relating to audit fees had been amended for the relevant period in dispute, the question still requires determination. We make it clear the parties are at liberty to urge all points available to them under law in relating to the other points.

8. The direction under the impugned judgment to refund the audit fee on the finding that the rule is invalid, has to be necessarily set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The question whether to refund or not and any other relied, if any, to which the respondents herein (the writ pet