JUDGMENT :

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The present appeals have been preferred by the Andaman & Nicobar Administration against the common judgement and order dated January 11, 2023 passed in WPA No. 43 of 2019 (Smartspace Infrastructure Private Limited vs. Union of India), WPA No. 56 of 2019 (Jogeshwar Nath Arora vs. The Lieutenant Governor), WPA No. 45 of 2019 ( Girish Arora vs, Lieutenant Governor), WPA No. 6016 of 2020 (Smartspace Infrastructure Private Limited vs. Union of India and others), WPA No. 187 of 2021 (Smartspace Infrastructure Private Limited vs. Union of India and others) and WPA No. 6019 of 2020 (Smartspace Infrastructure Private Limited vs. Union of India and others).

2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions, holding that the amended sub Clause (2) & (3) of Rule 4 (A) of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968 published vide Notification dated January 17, 2018 are struck down as ultra vires of Section 40 (2) of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulations, 1966 as well as of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Simultaneously, the Notification dated January 17, 2018 published by the Andaman & Nicobar Administration was also quashed and the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) directed to dispose of the respective applications of the writ petitioners in accordance with Section 40 (2) of the 1966 Regulations and the relevant Rules framed thereunder within six weeks from that date.

3. The appellants contend that one of the premises of the impugned judgement and order was that there was no prior publication of the impugned Notification dated January 17, 2018 in terms of Section 210 (1) of the 1966 Regulation. It is argued that 2018 Notification had merely brought in minor alterations to the previous Notification dated July 26, 2017, in respect of the composition of the Land Use Committee (LUC). Since the 2017 Notification was preceded by prior publication, no further prior Notification was necessary for the 2018 amendment. It is argued that thus, lack of prior publication for the 2018 Notification was not fatal to the same.

4. In support of his contention, Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellants, cites Municipal Board Maunath Bhanjan vs. M/s Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. reported in (1971) 1 SCC 875 where, while deciding on a challenge to a set of draft rules, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court has held that there was no previous publication of the draft rules for the levy of octroi and that only the rates of octroi were published, for which there was breach of the provisions of Sections 134(1)and 300 of the United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916 and Section 23 of the General Clauses Act.

5. It was observed that the draft rules were published as required by sub-Section (3) of Section 131 by the Officer in charge of the Board. Moreover it was found from the affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the Board that its Officer in charge wrote to the prescribed Authority on January 9, 1950, that the draft rules had been published in the "Sansar" on November 1, 1949, and may be sanctioned. An objection was also received from a particular Association, and the Commissioner directed that if the Board wanted to make any modification, it may again publish the modified proposals, which was done on February 14, 1950, but as only the rates had been reduced, and the rules had not been modified, it was not necessary to republish the draft rules.

6. The Supreme Court reiterated that the rules were forwarded to the Prescribed Authority on April 26, 1950, and were published in the State Gazette dated July 7, 1950. It was stated in the Notification that the rules were published under Section 300 of the Act, which required their previous publication, but there can be no doubt that it was a Notification under sub- Section (2) of Section 135 as it was issued after receipt of the Board's special resolution in pursuance