WANCHOO, C. J.—These are connected applications under Art. 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 the 14th May, 1952, and was enforced in the districts of Bharatpur and Alwar on the 16th May, 1952. The main contentions of the applicants are that the Act was void in view of Art. 13 of the Constitution because (1) it offends Art. 14, and (2) is not a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right conferred on the applicants by Art. 19 (1)(f), and cannot therefore be saved by Art. 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 Art. 14, and is saved by Art. 19 (5) as a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right conferred by Art. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.

4. The main argument, however, has been confined to Art. 14, and is directed against sec. 1(3) of the Act. It may be mentioned that the Act, as it stand, is a permanent measure, and by sec. 1, sub-sec. (2) it extends to the whole of Rajasthan sub-sec. (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 the 16th May, 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-sec. (3) of sec. 1 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Rents Control Act, 1952, the Government of Rajasthan has 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 days of May, 1952."

6. The argument on behalf of the applicants is that sec. 1 (3) confers a naked and arbitrary power to the State Government to enforce this Act wherever 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 Art. 14 of the Constitution have been fully explained in three cases by the Supreme Court. These cases are The State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1) (AIR 1952 S.C., 75.), Kathi Raning Rawat vs. State of Saurashtra(2) and Kedar Nath Bajoria vs. The State of West Bengal(3). The first case related to the West Bengal Special Courts Act (No. X) of 1950, and the validity of sec. 5(1) of that Act came up for consideration. It was held by the majority of the Judges that the section was ultra vires of the Constitution as it was in conflict with Art. 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 sec. 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 sec. 5(1) offended against Art. 14 of the Constitution as there was no basis for any classification in it.

8. Then allowed Kathi Raning Rawats case (2) (AIR 1952 S.C. 123.) which dealt with similar law passed by the State of Saurashtra. That law was upheld by the majority of the Judges on the ground that it provided basis for classification, and that the 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 the differentia had a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act.

9. These cases were considered in Kedar Nath

Click Here to Read the rest of this document