SECTION 1(3) OF THE ACT IS VOID AS IT VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

WANCHOO, C. J.

( 1 ) THESE are connected applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the Rajasthan Agricultural Rents Control Act (No. XIX) of 1952.

( 2 ) THE Act was passed on 14-5-1952, and was enforced in the Districts of bharatpur and Alwar on 16-5-1952. The main contentions of the applicants are that the Act was void in view of Article 13 of the Constitution because (1) it offends Article 14, and (2) is not a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right conferred on the applicants by Article 19 (1) (f), and cannot therefore be saved by article 19 (5) of the Constitution.

( 3 ) THE applications have been opposed by the State, and it is contended that the act is not hit by Article 14, and is saved by Article 19 (5) as a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right conferred by Article 19 (1) (f) of the constitution.

( 4 ) THE main argument, however has been confined to Article 14 and is directed against section 1 (3) of the Act. It may be mentioned that the Act, as it stands, is a permanent measure, and by section 1, Sub-section (2) it extends to the whole of rajasthan. Sub-section (3), however, reads as follows: "it shall come into force on such date and in such areas of Rajasthan as the State Government may from time to time notify in the Rajasthan gazette. "

( 5 ) IT was under this power that the State Government notified on 16-5-1952, that the Act would apply to the districts of Bharatpur and Alwar. That notification reads as follows:

"in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 3 of Section 1 of the rajasthan Agricultural Rents Control Act, 1952, the Government of rajasthan have been pleased to notify that the provisions of the said Act shall, come into force in the Districts of Alwar and Bharatpur on the 16th day of May, 1952. "

( 6 ) THE argument on behalf of the applicants is that Section 1 (3) confers a naked and arbitrary power to the State Government to enforce this Act where-ever it likes, and whenever it likes, without any guiding principle to control the action of the State Government, and as such is invalid as it is liable to lead to discrimination. It is also pointed out that in actual fact the State Government has only enforced this Act in two districts of Rajasthan, and the notification to that effect does not disclose any reason for singling out these districts, and the act has thus been applied arbitrarily.

( 7 ) THE principles governing the application of Article 14 of the Constitution have been fully explained in three cases by the Supreme Court. These cases are. (1) - the State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75 (A ). (2) kathi raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1952 SC 123 (B); (3) kedar Nath bajoria v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 404 (C ). The first case related to the West Bengal special Courts Act (No. X) of 1950, and the validity of Section 5 (1) of that Act came up for consideration. It was held by the majority of the judges that that section was ultra vires of the Constitution as it was in conflict with article 14 of the Constitution. The basis of the decision in these cases was that that Act gave no indication of the principles on which the State Government would exercise the power conferred on it under Section 5 (1) of sending cases or classes of cases to special Courts, or providing for trial of offences or classes of offences by such Courts. For this reason it was held that Section 5 (1) offended against article 14 of the Constitution as there was no basis for any classification in it.

( 8 ) THEN followed -- kathi Raning Rawats case (B) which dealt with a similar law passed by the State of Saurashtra. That law was upheld by the majority of the judges on the ground that it provided a basis for classification, and that tile classification was founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguished persons or things that were grouped together from others left out of the group, and that that dif