Judgment Wanchoo, CJ.-These are two connected applications challenging the validity of the Jaipur Hitkarni Committee Rules.

2. These Rules, which appeared in the Jaipur Government Gazette, dated 15-8-1945 provided for the appointment of what are called Hitkarni Committees for each district of the former State of Jaipur. This committee was given the power of fixing maintenance allowance of dependents of state grantees. It appears that before these rules came into force maintenance allowance of dependants of state grantees was fixed in case of dispute through a suit. These suits used to be filed in the Civil Courts. But a notification was published in the Jaipur Gazette of 15-6-1945, which provided that all suits against a state grantee by any chhutbhiya, maji, thakurani etc. for the grant of maintenance allowance or khangi payable from the income of a state grant shall be exclusively triable by revenue Courts, and all pending suits of this nature shall be transferred by the civil Courts to the revenue Courts.

3. The facts alleged by Bhopalsingh applicant are that in 1945 the allowance of Maji Mertaniji, opposite party, was fixed at Rs. 78/-per month. This allowance continued to be paid to her. In August, 1950, she applied to the Hitkarni Committee for increase of the allowance, and the Committee recommended that she should be paid Rs. 250/-per month. That recommendation was considered by the Revenue Minister as provided by the Rules, and on 4-8-1951, the Revenue Minister increased the allowance to Rs. 200/-per month. Then, on 16-8-1951, by another order the Revenue Minister raised the allowance to Rs. 250/-per month as recommended by the Hitkarni Committee. Bhopal Singh says that he submitted to that order and paid at the rate of Rs. 250/-p. m. up to June, 1951, as he was apprehensive of being exposed to dishonour. Later, however, in November, 1952, Maji Mertaniji again submitted an application before the Hitkami Committee that the maintenance for the preceding 12 years be recovered at the rate of Rs. 2507- per month. The applicant objected to this and raised the plea that the Hitkarni Committee Rules were ultra vires. The applicant also opposed further realisation of maintenance allowance at Rs. 250/-per month from him; but the Collector ordered Zabti in January, 1953. The applicant submits that he is always ready to pay at the rate of Rs. 78/-per month, but as that was not acceptable he had filed this application.

4. Bhopal Singh has raised various contentions with respect to the validity of the rules. In the first place, it is urged that these rules were not framed by His Highness the Maharaja of Jaipur, and therefore they have not the force of law. Further as they were not framed under any other law, they can have no force even as rules, as defined in the Jaipur General Clauses Act (No. VIII) of 1944. It was further urged that, in any case, even if these rules are said to be law, the law was never brought into force from any date, and therefore these rules cannot be acted upon. It was also urged that even if the rules were actually brought into force from some date, they are ultra vires in view of Articles 14 and 13 of the Constitution, inasmuch as they are

discriminatory. Certain other points with respect to the powers of the Hitkarni Committee under the rules were also raised by Bhopal Singh as well as by Shiv Kalyan Singh. We shall deal with these points separately in the end.

5. The State Government contends that these rules are law, and were brought into force on the date they were published in the Jaipur Gazette, namely 15-8-1945. It is also contended that they are not void on account of Article 14 and Article 13 of the Constitution. As there was nothing in the rules to indicate that they had been made or passed or approved by His Highness the Maharaja of Jaipur, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the State to the effect that these rules were in fact sanctioned by His Highness the Maharaja of Jaipur.

6. The rules are

Click Here to Read the rest of this document