BAPNA, J.—In this petition the validity of the Notification No. F. 1 (2) Rev./50, dated 14th June, 1951, is challenged.

2. His Highness the Rajpramukh promulgated an Ordinance to provide for the protection of tenants from ejectment from their holdings on the 21st day of June, 1949, as the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance 1949 (Ordinance No. IX of 1949), in exercise of the power conferred upon His Highness the Rajpramukh by paragraph (3) Art. X of the Covenant by which the State of Rajasthan was formed. In sub-sec. (3) of sec. 1 of the Ordinance it was laid down that the Ordinance "shall come into force at once and shall remain in force for a period of two years unless the period is further extended by the Rajpramukh by notification in the Rajasthan Gazette." In the Gazette of 11th June, 1951, (Part IV-A, Vol. 3, No. 55), the following Notification was published: —

"Government of Rajasthan

Revenue Department Notification

Jaipur, June 14, 1951.

No. F.1(2) Rev. 150— In pursuance of sub-sec. (3) of sec. 1 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 (No. IX of 1949), His Highness the Rajpramukh is pleased to extend the period for which the said Ordinance shall remain in force for a further term of two years with effect from the 21st of June, 1951.

By Order of

His Highness the Rajpramukh,

S.W. Shiveshawarkar,

Chief Secretary to Government."

The validity of this Notification is challenged. It is contended for the petitioner that after the coming into force of the Constitution of India, the Rajpramukh could only promulgate an Ordinance, as provided by Art. 213 of the Constitution, in which case certain formalities mentioned in para (2) of Art. 213 had to be followed. It is urged that the Legislature met for the first them in March, 1952, in Rajasthan, and this Notification was not placed before the Legislative Assembly. It is also urged that the Notification purports to have been issued in the exercise of the power given by sub-sec. (3) of sec. 1 of the Ordinance No.IX of 1949, and if so, it became a legislation by delegated authority.

3. The Notification does not say that it had been issued in exercise of the power given by sub-sec. (3) of sec. 1 of the Ordinance. In fact, sub-sec. (3) of sec. 1 does not purport to grant any power to the Rajpramukh. That sub-section declares in the, first place, the period for which the Ordinance shall remain in force, and by way of caution mentions that period may be extended by Rajpramukh. But the extension, if any, by the Rajpramukh would only be possible, if there was any authority in the Rajpramukh at the time the extension was to be made. On the date, when the Notification of 14th June, 1951 was made the Constitution was in force; but the Legislative Assembly, which was the only House provided for Rajasthan, had not been constituted. Under Art. 385, therefore, the same authority which functioned as the legislative authority prior to the Constitution, continued to exercise legislative powers, and under Art. X of the Covenant, the Rajpramukh was vested with legislative powers.

4. Learned counsel argued that Art. 385 was not applicable to Rajasthan, and did not, in any case, empower the Rajpramukh to exercise legislative powers, as the body or authority functioning immediately before the commencement of the Constitution as the Legislature of the corresponding "Indian State" was only authorised to exercise and perform the duty conferred by the provisions of the Constitution on the House of the Legislature of the State. It was argued that the "Indian States" could only refer to the various Covenanting States, some of which had Legislatures under the various laws of those States. The Rajasthan State was constituted on the 7th of April, 1949, and the Constitution came into force on the 26th January, 1950. On the date of the commencement of the Constitution the individual States had merged into the State of Rajasthan, and the Rajasthan State was the Indian State referred to in Art. 385 of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document