DIXTI, C. J. :- This order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 22 of 1963.

2. These are two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Cash Grants Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) The petitioners seek a declaration that the Act is invalid, ultra vires and unenforceable and pray that the opponent State be restrained by a suitable direction from putting the Act into operation.

3. One of the petitioners claims to be the recipient of a cash payment of Rs. 300 per month as a muafidar from the respondent State. The other petitioner says that as a silledar be is entitled to receive a cash payment of Rs. 72.50 nP. per month from the State. The petitioners claim that their right to receive these cash payments is "property right" and that the impugned legislation has been enacted for the purpose of depriving them and other "recipients of cash grants" of their property rights. Shortly stated, their contentions are that the Act is ultra vires the Constitution in that :

(1) it was beyond the legislative competence of the Madhya Pradesh Legislature to enact it;

(2) that there is no public purpose behind the discontinuance of these "cash grants" and the compensation provided by the Act is illusory; and thus the Act is ultra vires article 31(2) of the Constitution;

(3) that, alternatively, the Act is ultra vires article 31(1) of the Constitution as it infringes the petitioners fundamental right under article 19(1)(f) and is not saved by article 19(5);

(4) that the Act is on the face of it discriminatory and infringes article 14 of the Constitution;

(5) that the provisions of Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Act in so far as they relate to persona already getting payments are wide and irrational inasmuch as they compel the grantee for a second scrutiny and amount to an unreasonable restriction on the right to get the payment every month without any break;

(6) that the definition of "cash grant" given, in Section 2(1) of the Act is vague and uncertain; and by giving to the Government unchecked and absolute power to treat anyone it likes as a grantee, the Legislature abdicated its legislative function; and lastly,

(7) that the Act is a piece of colourable legislation and does not subserve any public purpose or public interest.

4. Before dealing with the petitioners' contentions it is necessary to refer to the features of the Act. The long title of the Act is .

"An Act to provide for the discontinuance of cash grants in Madhya Pradesh and to make provision for other matters connected therewith".

It does not contain any preamble. It received the assent of the President on 25th, July 1963 and the assent was published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette, Extraordinary, on 2nd August 1963. The Act extends to the whole of Madhya Pradesh and is to come into force on such data as the State Government may, by notification, appoint. No such notification has been issued so far. Section 2(1) defines "cash grant" as meaning

"a grant of money which is enforceable by the grantee against the State Government on the date of the coming into force of this Act but does not include ..... .".

The grants which have been excluded from the the definition are those paid for services and worship in public temples or mosques or church, those received by charitable or religious institutions, and grants of money or pension or annuity or special or perpetual annuity sanctioned under the statutes mentioned in Section 2(1)(iii) of that Act. Section 3 of the Act runs as follows :-

"3. Abolition of certain cash grants :- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, custom, usage, sanad or a decree or order of a Court or other authority whatsoever, all cash grants shall be discontinued and cease to have effect from the commencement of this Act :

Provided that where the grantee is a person specified in column (1) of the Table below, the cash grant may, at the option of the grantee exercise