- (1.) IN exercise of the powers conferred by Section 78 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1948"), the State Government framed the Rajasthan State Electricity Supply Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Rules, 1963" ). Rule 4 of the Rules, 1963 prescribes the terms of office and conditions of appointment of Chairman and Members of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (in short, "the Board" ). Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1963 lays down that:- "4(3)No person shall hold office of the Chairman or a Member beyond the age of sixty five years. " By means of an amendment made on 8. 12. 1992, made in exercise of the powers, aforesaid, Rules, 1963 were amended. IN Rule 4, after sub-rule (2) a new sub-rule viz. , (2a) has been inserted and for sub-rule (3) the following sub-rule has been substituted: "4 (3)No person shall hold office of the Chairman or a member beyond the age of sixty seven years. "
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the validity of the aforesaid rules on the ground that the same is not in consonance with the policy of the State Government and in keeping with the principles and the spirit of the Act, 1948. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the impugned rule, raising age, was framed by the State Government to benefit Shri R. C. Dave, as he was a favoured child of the Government and that there was no such special quality or competence in Shri R. C. Dave, which could not be found in others, who would have been considered had Shri R. C. Dave been not made the Chairman of the Board. The submission of the learned counsel is not acceptable to us. A trend, very much in vogue to-day in all democratic countries, is that only a relatively small part of the total legislative out put emanates directly from the legislature. The bulk of the legislation is promulgated by the executive, known as "delegated legislation". The legislature only lays down general principles and policies relating to the subject matter in question and confers rule-making power on the government, or on some other administrative agency. This technique of delegated legislation is designated by several names, such as, rules, regulations, bye-laws and orders etc. The impugned rule was made by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) (a) of Sec. 78 of the Act, 1948. The relevant portions of these are quoted below: - "78. Power to make rules: (1) The State Government may, after previous publication by notifica- tion in the Official Gazette, make rules to give effect to the provisions of this Act. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for - (a) the powers of the Chairman and the term of office of the Chairman and other members of the Board, the conditions under which they shall be eligible for re-appointment and their remuneration, allowances and other conditions of service. "
(3.) SUB-section (1) of Sec. 78 is general in nature whereas clause (a) of sub-section (2) is particular dealing with the subjects enumerated therein. One of the subjects, on which rule can be made, is about the term of office of the Chairman and other Members of the Board. It also deals with re-appointment. On a consideration of Sec. 78 and the Rules impugned before us, we find that the same is not ultra vires as it does not go beyond the scope of the authority conferred by the Statute. The principle is that the delegate cannot make a rule, which is not authorised by the parent statute. Such is not the position in the instant case. Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Sec. 78 specifically authorises the State Government to make rules for retirement of a Chairman. It further authorises the State Government to make a provision for his retirement, if it is thought necessary. The submission of the petitioner's counsel that delegated legislation goes against the basic policy of the parent statute, principally cannot be denied. But the challenge made is not sustainable. Rules have to be made so as to facilitate the achieving and carrying out purposes of the Act. Such purpose sets out the limits of the framing of Rules so that a rule to be valid, must pertain to them. In the instant case, we find that the rule is within the power conferred by Sec. 78 (2) (a) of the Act, 1948. ;