M.KATJU, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition and in a large number of other similar writ petitions listed before us the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of U.P. Ordinance No. 8 of 2002 Annexure 2 to the writ petition entitled œThe U.P. Regulation of Coaching Ordinance, 2002.  This Ordinance was subsequently repealed by U.P. Regulation of Coaching Act, 2002. The petitioners have also challenged the validity of the said Act by an amendment application and also of the Rules made under the said Ordinance, Act, copy of which is Annexure 3 to the writ petition and have prayed for a mandamus restraining the respondents from enforcing the said Ordinance/Act and Rules framed thereunder.
(2.) IT is alleged in paragraphs 3 to 6 -A of the writ petition that the petitioners are institutions/societies imparting coaching for various courses as mentioned in those paragraphs. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The preamble to the Act states. œAn Act to provide for restriction on coaching under certain circumstances, and for the registration of the person imparting coaching, or running managing or maintaining coaching centres, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.  The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act states: œThe State Government received complaints that the teachers of the Universities, Degree Colleges and other aided institutions were imparting coaching or running managing or maintaining coaching centers and were not taking interest in imparting instructions in their respective Universities, Colleges or institutions. It was, therefore, decided to make a law to provide for restriction on coaching under certain circumstances and for registration of the person imparting coaching or running, managing or maintaining coaching centres.  Various submissions have been made in this bunch of petitions and we may deal with them seriatim.
(3.) IT is first alleged that the said Ordinance/Act amounts to colourable exercise of power. This submission is totally misconceived. The expression 'colourable exercise of powers' when attributed to a legislation has nothing to do with motive but it relates only to legislative competence vide K.C.G. Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa, AIR 1953 SC 375 (379), Ashok v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1792 (Para 6), Jaora Sugar Mills v. State of M.P., AIR 1966 SC 416 (421). In these decisions it has been held that the doctrine of colourable legislation has nothing to do with motive and only relates to the question of vires or the power of the legislature to make the law vide Federation of Hotel and Restraunt v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1637, R.S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills, AIR 1977 SC 2279 (Para 16); Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 381 etc.;