R.M.Seth, J. - (1.) Petitioners in all these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in detaining their goods in the purported exercise of powers under Section 28-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act as substituted by the U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1979 (U.P. Act 33 of 1979) (hereinafter referred to as the new Section 28-A). They question the validity of the action of the respondents inter alia on following grounds: 1. Section 28-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act as substituted by U.P. Act No. 33 of 1979 is constitutionally invalid and as such it cannot be relied upon for sustaining the action of the respondents; and 2. There being no valid notification by the State Government specifying the quantity, measure or value of goods as contemplated by Section 28-A(1), in existence, the respondents could not, in exercise of powers under Section 28-A(6) of the Act detain the goods of the petitioners.
(2.) Before these petitions could be taken for hearing, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh, presumably with a view to set at rest the controversy with regard to validity of the new Section 28-A as also that of the action of the respondents in detaining the goods belong to the petitioners, promulgated an Ordinance entitled as "the. U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1982 (U.P. Ordinance No. 35 of 1982) on 6th October, 1982, making certain amendments in the new Section 28-A and providing that reference in the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948, to Section 28-A of the Act would be deemed to be reference to Section 28-A as substituted by the 1979 Act and that notification dated 29th March, 1974, as amended by notification dated 19th November, 1974 (specifying the quantity, measure and value of goods for purposes of Section 28-A(1) of the Act as it then stood) shall continue to be in force and deemed to have remained in force as if the same had been issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 28-A of the Act as substituted by U.P. Act 33 of 1979.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners then questioned the validity of the U.P. Ordinance No. 35 of 1982 as well. They contended that the said Ordinance also was constitutionally invalid and that in any case it did not succeed in achieving its objective.;