( 1 ) I have had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by my learned brother and I concur in the order proposed by him. In view of the Full discussion of the facts and the law contained in that judgment it is hardly necessary for me to add anything. I would, however, like to emphasise that though the Court may inquire into the fact of the Governors satisfaction, it cannot inquire into the reasons for that satisfaction or into the sufficiency of those reasons.

( 2 ) IN the present case there is no evidence to show that the Governor was not in fact satisfied. The material contained in the counter affidavit (the correctness of which is not disputed)indicates that the Governor was satisfied after mature and prolonged deliberation of the necessity for an amendment of the Sales Tax Act in order to meet the revenue requirements of the State. At first the necessity was not immediate since correspondence was going on between the State government and the Union Government with regard to the matter and there was no reason to suppose that that correspondence would lead to no result. As the 1st of April came nearer and nearer the Governor became satisfied of the need for imme