The legal document discusses the constitutional validity and procedural appropriateness of Section 22-A of the Registration Act as amended by the Rajasthan Legislature, along with related notifications issued under this section. The core issue revolves around whether the powers conferred on the State Government to declare certain documents as opposed to public policy and refuse registration are within constitutional bounds and whether these provisions are reasonable and non-arbitrary.

Key points include: - Section 22-A grants the State Government broad, unregulated authority to declare certain documents opposed to public policy, which results in refusal of registration (!) (!) (!) . - The section delegates legislative power to the executive without clear guidelines, leading to concerns about arbitrariness and violation of the right to equality and fair treatment under the law (!) (!) . - The notifications issued under Section 22-A attempt to restrict registration of powers of attorney based on the duration or the nature of the transaction, such as prohibiting registration of powers of attorney exceeding three years or authorizing transfer outside the jurisdiction, which are considered arbitrary classifications lacking rational nexus with the objective (!) (!) . - The primary contention is that the execution of a power of attorney, being a contractual agency, does not inherently oppose public policy, and restrictions based solely on the form or duration of such documents are unreasonable and arbitrary (!) (!) . - The law of registration aims to authenticate transactions and provide legal certainty, but the impugned provisions and notifications overreach by declaring otherwise permissible acts as opposed to public policy without sufficient legal or rational basis (!) (!) . - The section and notifications effectively interfere with the substantive rights of parties to deal with property, and their broad, unregulated scope violates principles of reasonableness and equality (!) (!) . - The court concludes that Section 22-A, as amended, and the related notifications are ultra vires and unconstitutional because they confer unchecked executive power, are based on vague criteria, and lack necessary guidelines, thereby violating the principles of equality and lawful authority (!) (!) .

Overall, the judgment emphasizes that restrictions on registration must be grounded in clear, rational, and lawful standards, and that delegating such sweeping powers without proper guidelines is unconstitutional. The court directs the registration authority to register the challenged power of attorney, declaring the impugned section and notifications void for violating constitutional principles.