- (1.) R. A. Sharma, J. The Prescribed Authority under Fertilisers Control (Order) 1985, vide its orders dated 6-10-1994 and 10- 10-1994, cancelled the certificates of registration granted to the appellant for car rying on business of whole-seller and manufacturers. It challenged the said orders by filing appeal before the appellate authority under the said Control order. The appeals having been dismissed the appel lant filed writ petition before this Court which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 28-11-1994. Feeling ag grieved by the judgment of learned Single Judge the appellant filed this appeal,
(2.) THE appellant has filed this appeal under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of Allahabad High Court Rules which provides for Spe cial Appeal from a judgment, not being the judgments mentioned therein, of a Single Judge. Rule 5 of Chapter VIII so far as it is relevant for the present case is reproduced below: "ch. Vlll Rule '5.- Special Appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not being a judg ment passed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . in the exercise of jurisdic tion conferred by Article 226 of Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order of award (a) of a tribunal, Court or statutory ar bitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b) of the Government or any Officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act) of one Judge. In the instant case the learned Single Judge has given the. mpugned judgment in a writ petition filed by the appellant against an appellate order passed by the appellate authority under Fertilizers (Control Order. THErefore, from the judgment of Single Judge in such a writ petition Special Appeal does not lie. The learned Counsel for the appel lant has, however, contended that Special Appeal will not lie from the judgment of one Judge if the appellate order impugned in the writ petition, was passed in exercise of the power conferred "under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act"; but in the instant case the appellate order was passed by the appellate authority under the Subor dinate Legislation (Fertilizers (Control) Order and not under any Uttar Pradesh or Central Act and, therefore, the appeal is maintainable. This contention cannot be ac cepted. The meanings Of the words "by" or "under the Act" are well known. When any thing is required to be done by "an Act" it means by a provision contained in the Act. But if a thing is required to be done "under the Act" it would cover an action under the Subordinate Legislation enacted in exercise of the power conferred by the Act. In this connection reference may be made to Dr. Indramani Pyarelal Gupta and Ors. v. W. R. Natu and Ors. AIR 1963 SC 274, wherein it was laid down as under: "the question therefore is whether a power conferred by a Bye-law could be held to be a power "conferred under the Act". The meaning of the words "under the Act" is well known. "by" and Act would mean by a provision directly enacted in the statute in question and which is gathcrable from its express language or by necessary implica tion therefrom. The words "under the Act" would, in that context signify what is not directly to be found in the statute itself but is conferred or imposed by virtue of powers enabling this to be done, in other words Bye-laws made by a Subor dinate law making authority which is empowered to do so by patent Act. The distinction is thus between what is directly done by enactment and what is done indirectly by rule making authorities which are vested with powers in that behalf by the Act. [vide Hubil Electricity Co. Ltd. V. Province of Bombay 76 Ind App 57 at p. 66; AIR 1949 PC 136 at p. 139, and Narayanaswamy Naidu v. Krishna - Murthi, ILR (1958) Mad 513 at p. 547; AIR 1958 Mad 343 at p. 359". As the appellate order was passed under the Fertilizers Control Order which is Subordinate Legislation enacted in exercise of the powers conferred by the Act, it would be deemed to have been passed under the "act". That being the position, the Special Appeal is not maintainable.
(3.) FOR the reasons given above, this appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. Appeal dismissed. .;