An executive order passed by a sovereign ruler is not necessarily a law and cannot be enforced unless it is passed in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the relevant law.

WANCHOO, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application by Thakur Jaisingh for the issue of a writ of prohibition, or any appropriate direction, order or writ of that nature under Article 226 of the constitution, prohibiting the State of Rajasthan, opposite party, from recovering the alleged fine of Rs. 10,000/- from the applicant as arrears of land revenue.

( 2 ) THE case of the applicant is that he is the jagirdar of Thikana Garh-Taknet and kalyanpura, and that a fine of Rs. 10,000/-was imposed upon him by the Ruler of the former State of Jaipur on account of illegal distillation of liquor by the applicant. Out of this sum, Rs. 3,000/-were recovered from the applicant in january, 1950. The applicant objected to the recovery of this amount or any further amount from him with respect to the alleged fine of Rs. 10,000/-, but the Government ordered the assumption of the management of the Thikana by the Court of Wards in order to realize the balance of Rs. 7,000/ -. Thereupon, the applicant filed a writ petition in this Court against the order assuming superintendence of his Thikana. That petition was allowed and the Thikana was ordered to be released. The applicant had then withdrawn his prayer about the recovery of Rs. 10,000/- from him as he wanted to file a suit for refund of the amount against the Government. After the release of the Thikana, the applicant wanted the Court of Wards to give him the ac-count so that he might find out how much, out of the fine of Rs. 10,000/-, had been recovered by the Court of Wards, so that he might file a suit. Before however an account was supplied to him and before he could file a suit, he received a notice from the Tahsildar Neem-ka-Thana, who has also been made a party to this application, asking him to deposit Rs. 7,000/-towards the fine of Rs. 10,000/- and threatening to attach his Thikana in case that was not done. Thereupon, the applicant filed the present application praying that the State be directed not to recover this amount from him. The applicant contended that the order of the Ruler of the former Jaipur State was without authority of law, and that the Ruler could not impose any such fine on him. As such, no money could be recovered from him by the State of Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Public demands Recovery Act. It was also urged that no notice was served on the applicant under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act, 1952, and therefore no money could be recovered, in any case, under that Act.

( 3 ) THE application has been opposed on behalf of the State. It is contended by the state that the applicant was distilling illicit liquor against the provision of the excise Law of the former State of Jaipur. Therefore, His Highness the Maharaja of jaipur passed an order dated 6-4-1949, imposing a fine of Rs. 10,000/-on the applicant, out of which Rs. 3,000/-were realized. The applicant moved a writ application in this Court in 1950. In that application the validity of the order was challenged, and it was prayed that the remaining sum of Rs. 7,000/-should be ordered mot to be realized. When that petition came up for hearing, the applicant withdrew his case as to the validity of the order and the realization of the remaining sum. Therefore, it was not open to him to file a second application on the same point.

( 4 ) AS to the merits of the case, it was urged that the fine was imposed by His highness the Maharaja of Jaipur on 6-4-1949, and that at that time His Highness was the sovereign authority in that State and his order had the force of law. As the provisions of the Constitution of India were not retrospective, and the right to realize the amount of fine imposed on the petitioner accrued before the constitution of India came into force, the validity of the order could not be challenged now. It was also urged that the fine could be realized as an arrear of land revenue. Finally it was urged that he had another adequate and effective remedy, and could file a suit fo