MAHABIR SAHU Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Mahabir Sahu, has been convicted for having contravened the Foodgrains Control Order by keeping for sale more than 20 maunds of rice without a permit. THE Foodgrains Control Order was made by the Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Sub-rule (2) of Rule 81, Defence of India Rules. Section 1(2) of the order provided that it should come into force in any province only on such date as the Provincial Government might by notification in the official gazette appoint on that behalf. THE Government of Bihar on 9-7-1942, issued a notification directing that the order should come into force in the Province of Bihar on 16-7-1942. THE petitioner Mahabir Sahu, is a shop-keeper of Ranchi, and Mr. Rai Parasnath, who appears on his behalf, contends that as Ranchi is situated within a partially excluded area, the Provincial Government should have issued a separate notification regarding it. For this, Mr. Rai Parasnath relies on Section 92(1), Government of India Act. THE defence of India Act was, however, declared to be in force in Chota Nagpur and other partially excluded areas in Bihar on 15-10-1939. Once the Defence of India Act, had been extended to Chota Nagpur, it was quite unnecessary for the Provincial Government to issue separate notifications directing that every rule made under the Act and every order made under the rules should come into operation in such areas. Once an Act has been extended to an excluded area, or partially excluded area, it necessarily follows that any rule or order made in exercise of powers conferred by the Act also comes into operation in such area. Mr. Rai Parasnath next contended that the Foodgrains Control Order was itself ultra vires, the Legislature not having expressly conferred a power on the Central Government to make such an order. THEre is clearly no substance in this. THE order in question could have been made under Clause (20) in Sub-section (2) of Section 2, Defence of India Act. Even if it was not or could not have been made under that Sub-section it could certainly have been made under the wider powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 2. Lastly Mr. Rai Parasnath ventured to suggest that the Defence of India Act itself was ultra vires as the act of the Legislature in conferring such wide powers to make rules and orders on other persons or bodies was not legislation but such a delegation of the legislative power, as to use his own words, amounted to an abrogation of its functions. This, Mr. Rai Parasnath said, the Legislature under the constitution could not do. THE Legislatures in India can, it is quite clear, enact statutes, and by these statutes delegate to other bodies or persons the power to make rules or orders, that is, to exercise delegated powers of legislation. It is, in my opinion, quite impossible to suggest at this late hour of the day that in enacting the Defence of India Act the Central Legislature exceeded its powers under the constitution. THE point appears to have been considered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Meer Singh V/s. Emperor and to have been negatived. In my opinion, there is no merit whatever in this application and I would dismiss it. Imam, J.

(2.) I agree.