SHELAT J.M.,J.

(1) ON 16/08/1962 the administration of Pondicherry became vested in the government of India by virtue of de jure transfer. The Pondicherry Administration Act, 42 of 1962 constituted that territory as a separate centrally administered unit and under the Union Territories Act, 20 of 1963 a legislative assembly wag set up for that area. The assembly under that Act acquired the power of enacting laws in respect of items in Lists 11 and III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The assembly thereafter passed the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 10 of 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act) which was published on 3/06/1965 after receiving the Presidents assent on 25/05/1965. Section 1(2) of that Act provided that the Act would come into force on such date as the government may notification appoint Section 2(1) provided that:`The Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (No. 1 of 1,959) (hereinafter refered to as the Act) as in force in the State of Madras immediately before the commencement of this Act shall extend to and come into force in the Union Territory of Pondichery subjectto thefollowingmodifications and. adaptations,.............` Then follow certain modification and adaptations which are not relevant for out purposes except that cl. (ix.) of sec. (2)(1) substituted Sec. 30 of the Madras Act and provided for an Appellate tribunal. The substituted section laid down that the government shall appoint a Judicial officer who is otherwise qualified to be appointed as a Judge of the tribunal Superieur dAppeal to be the Appellate Tribunal and to exercise the functions conferred under the Act The Act also enacted a Schedule with description of goods, the point of levy and the rates at which the tax was to be levied. Sec 2(2) provided that the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 and any other Rules made or issued under the said Act and similarly in force were to apply to Pondicherry. As provided by section 1(2)the Pondicherry government issued a notification dated 1/03/1966 bringing into force the Madras Act as extended by the Act to Pondicherry as from 1/04/1966. In the meantime the Madras legislature had amended the Madras Act and consequently it was the Madras Act as amended upto April 1, 1966 which was brought into force under the said notification.

(2) THE petitioner is a merchant carrying on business in liquor and would be a dealer within the meaning of the Madras Act. Upto March 1966 he was liable and was paying certain taxes similar to the sales tax under the French regulations till then in force in Pondicherry. With the coming into force of the Principal Act he was served with a notice to register himself as a dealer. Thereupon he filed this petition challenging the validity of the Principal Act.

(3) MR. S. T. Desai for the petitioner contended that the Principal Act was void and was a still-born legislation by reason of the Pondicherry legislature having abdicated its legislative function in favour of the Madras State Legislature, that such abdication resulted from the wholesale adoption of the Madras Act as in force in the State of Madras immediately before the commencement of the Principal Act and that Sec. 2(1) read with sec. 1(2) meant that the legislature adopted not only the Madras Act as it was when it enacted the Principal Act but also such amendment or amendments in that Act which might be passed by the Madras Legislature upto the time of the commencement of the Act, i.e., upto 1/04/1966. Mr. Setalvad, on the other hand, relied on the majority decision in in re. Delhi Laws Act, 1912, etc. case (1) and in particular on the summary by Bose J. in Raj Narain Singhs case(2) of the diverse views expressed by the learned Judges in that decision. As heading (4) in the said summary shows the learned Judges inter alia held by a majority of 5 to 2 that authorisation to select and apply future Provincial laws was not invalid. To ascertain the principle deduci