C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.

Petitioners in this batch cases were running toddy shops as licensees and were liable to pay toddy workers welfare fund contribution payable under the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969, hereinafter called the “Act”. The challenge in the WPs. is against the' validity of S.9 of the Act, introduced by Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund (Amendment) Act, 1996 with effect from 26.3.1996, wherein the rate of interest for belated payment of toddy workers welfare fund is made at par with interest payable under the Abkari Act. The rate of interest payable until the amendment in 1996 was nine per cent per annum. The effect of the amendment is increase of interest for belated payment from nine per cent to 18 per cent per annum which is the rate provided under, R.7 (30) of the Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002. I heard all counsel appearing for the petitioners, and various standing counsel appearing for the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board representing different districts.

2. The first contention raised by the petitioners is that the amendment to Section 9 vide Amendment Act, 1996 is of no consequence because the Abkari Act does not provide for any rate of interest. Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that R.7 (30) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002, hereinafter called the “Rules” prescribed under S. 29 of the Abkari Act (1 of 1077) is part of the Abkari Act and so much so, the same rate of interest, that is, 18% will apply to the Act with effect from the date of amendment, that is from 26.3.1996. In order to appreciate the contentions, statutory provisions have to be gone into and for easy reference the provisions are extracted hereunder. S.9 of the Act introduced by Amendment Act of 1996 is as follows:

Amendment of S.9 -- In S.9 of the Principal Act for the works “together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum” the words “together with interest thereon at the same rate as applicable, from time to time, to the dues in arrears under the Abkari Act, 1 of 1077” shall be substituted.

R.7 (30) of the Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 is as follows:­

Interest on all money due shall be payable at the rate of 18 per cent per annum or such other rate of interest as may be fixed by the Government from time to time.

The contention of the petitioners that R.7 (30) of the Rules is not part of the Abkari Act is not tenable by virtue of the operation of Section 69 of the Abkari Act, which is as follows:

69. Publication of rules and notifications.-- All rules made and notifications issued under this Act shall be made and issued by publication in the Gazette. All such rules, and notifications shall thereupon have the force of law and read as part of this Act and may in like manner be verified, suspended or annulled.

It is obvious from S.69 of the Abkari Act that Legislature for all practical purposes treats Rules and Notifications issued under the delegated powers as part of the statute and will have the same force of law as statutory provisions. Eventhough counsel for the petitioners relied on decision of this Court in Paulson Distillery case (1989 (1) KLT 962) and contended that delegated legislation should not be treated as part of the statute, inspite of a provision in the statute to that effect. I do not think the said decision will justify this Court to take similar view with reference to the impugned amendment to the Act. All that is stated in the said decision is that even if the delegated legislation is considered as part of the statute, it is subject to judicial review and the provisions made in exercise of delegated power should conform to the statute for it's validity. So long as the Abkari Act does not provide any provision for interest and the interest prescribed by the Rule in exercise of delegated' power is not altered by legislature in exercise of their control over subordinate legislation, the Rule has to be treated as Part of the statute as specifically pr