VASANTLAL MAGANBHAI SANJANWALA versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND OTHERS. (AND CONNECTED APPEAL)

For reasons set o~t in the principal petition, peti-tions Nos. 124 and 125 of 1957 and 118of1959 should also be dismissed with costs. BY COURT: In view of t.he majority Judgment, the petitions are allowed.. The petitioners in a.II the petitions will have their costs.

Petitions allowed.

Universal

Imports Agency

Chief Controller of Imports~ Exports

Shah ],

VASANTLAL MAGANBHAI SANJANWALA

THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND OTHERS •. (AND CONNECTED APPEAL)

(B. P. SINHA, .. J., J. L. KAPUR,

P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SuBBA RAO and

K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.)

Agricultural Tenancy, Regulation of-Enactment emptn11ering Government to fix lower rate of maximum rent by notification-If vitiated by excessive delegation-Notification, validity of-Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, r948 (Bom. LXV II of z948), s. 6(2),

Section 6(1) of the Bombay Tenancy anc;I Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Born. LXVII of 1948), provided that the maximum rent payable· by tenant shall not in the case of irrigated land exceed one-fourth and in the case of any other land exceed one third of the crop of such land or its value as determined by the prescribed manner. Section 6(2) of the Act read as follows,-

" The Provincial Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, fix lower rate of the maximum rent payable by the tenants of lands situate in any particular area or may fix such rate on any other suitable basis as it thinks fit."

By notification under that section the Government of Bombay, in supersession of all other notifications prescribed rate of maximum rent which was very much lower than the one pre-viously fixed. The petitioners challenged the vires of the said section and the validity of the notification under Art. 226 of the Constitution, but the High Court found against them. The . question for determination in these appeals was whether s. 6(2) conferred unguided power 011 the Government and was void by reason of excessive delegation of legislative power.

1960 cld (per Sinha, C. J., Kapur, Gajendragadkar and Wanchoo, JJ.l that although the power of delegation is con-Vosa•tlal stituent clement of the legislative power, it is well-settled that Maga•bhai legislature cannot delegate its essential legislative function in Sonjauwala any case and before it can delegate any subsidiary or ar,cillary v. powers to delegate of its choice, it must lay down the legisla-The State of tive policy and principle so as to afford the delegate proper Bombay 6- Othm guidance in implementing the same. statute challenged on the ground of excessive delegatio~ must, therefore, be subjected to two tests, (1) whether it delegates essential legislative func-tion or power and :2) whether the legislature has enunciated its policy and principle for the guidance of the delegate. It is in that light that the preamble of the statute and its provisions relating to delegation should be considered.

Harishankar Bag/av. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [1955] 1 S. C. R. 288 and The Edward Mi,'.ts Co. Ltd., Bemrnr v. Stale of Ajmer, [1955] l S.C.R. 735, referred to. ·

The preamble and the material provisions of the Act show that it seeks to improve the economic and social condition of the peasants and with that end in view fixes maximum rent payable by the tenants and provides speedy machinery for fixation of reasonable rent. This being the legislative policy and regard being had to the specific provisions laid down by s. 12(3) of the Act for determining reasonable rent, it is impossible to hold that the power delegated to the Prov'ncial Government bys. 6(2) was vitiated by excessive delegation. The fact that no minimum was prescribed by the section could not alter the position.

Held, further, that since the Act itself is within the protec-

tion of Art. 31-B of the Constitution and there can be no ques-tion as to the validity of s. 6(2), the notification issued in exercise of the power conferr.,d by that section cannot be challenged as infringing Art. 31 of the Constitution. Nor was it correct to say that the power delegated bys. 6(2) could be used only once and no more.

Per Subba Rao, J.-The essential legislative function is the determination of the legislative policy and its formulation as rule of conduct. Obviously the legislature cannot abdicate its functions in favour of another. But in view of the multifarious activities of welfare State, it cannot presumably work out all the details to suit the varying aspects of complex situation. It must necessarily delegate the working out of details to the executive or any other agency. But there is danger inherent in sach process of delegation. It may not lay down any policy at all; it may declare its policy in vague and general terms; it may not set down any standard for the guidance of the executive, it may confer an arbitrary power.on the executive to change or modify the policy laid down by it without reserv-ing for itself any control over subordinate legislation. This self-effacement of legislative power in favour of another agency

either in whole or in part is beyond the permissible limits of delegation. It is for Court to hold on fair, generons and liberal construction of an impugned statute whether the legisla-ture exceeded such limits. But the said liberal construction should not be carried by the courts to the extent of always trying to discover dormant or latent legislative policy to sustain an arbitrary power conferred on executive authorities.

Vasantlal Maganbhai Sanjanwala v.

The State of

In re The Delhi Laws Act, r9r2, [1951] S.C.R. · 747, Rajnarain Bombay & Othm Singh v. The Chairman. Patna Administration Committee, Patna, (1955] r S. C. R. 290, Harishankar Bagla v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [1955] l S. C.R. 380, The Edward Mills Co., Ltd., Beawar v. The State of Ajmer, [1955] l S. C.R. 735 aud Hamdard Dawak-hana v. Union of India, [1960] 2 S.C.R. 671, referred to.

The whole scheme of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (LXVII of 1948), excluding s. 6(2), is self-contained and integrated one. The legislature fixes the maxi-mum rentlinked with crop having regard to the nature of the land, and the other provisions enable the appropriate authori-ties to fix reasonable rent subject to that maximum. But under s. 6(2) the legislature in clearest terms abdicated its essential functions in favour of the executive authority without laying down any standard for its guidance. In effect it permitted the Government to amends. 6(1) of the Act. Whiles. 6(1) overrides other provisions of the Act, s. 6(2) derogates from s. 6(1) itself. Section 6(2) is capable of being exercised in such way that_the object of s. 6(1) is itself frustrated. Section 6(1) in effect is made subject to s. 6(2). This is clearly an abdication by the legislature of its essential legislative function and the delegation must be held void .

. It was not correct to say that the factors specified bys. 12(3) afforded standard for fixing the maximum rent. It wa:s not permissible to re!id them into s. 6(2) of the Act.

No legislature can be legally permitted lo lay down broad policy in general terms and confer arbitrary powers on the executive for carrying it out. Such law must obviously be contrary to the decisions of this Court and cannot be vali<;I.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:

Civil Appeals

Nos. 147 & 148 of 1955 .

. Appeals from the judgment and order dated Septem-ber 30, 1953, of the former Bombay High Court in Special Civil Applications Nos. 1008 and 1611of1953.

: V. M. Limaye, Mrs. E. Udayaratnam and S. S. Shukla, for tho appellants (in both the appeals).

• H. N~ Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India, R. Ganapathy Iyer, K. L. Hathi and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent. ·

1960. August 25. The Judgment of Sinha, C. J., Kapur, Gajendragadkar and Wanchoo, JJ., was deli-vered by Gajendragadkar, J. Subba Hao, J., deliver-ed separate judgment.

V asanllal Maganbhai Sa11janwala

The 5~~ 1, of GAJENDRAGADKAR J.-The appellants in these two Bom/J•v &- Othm appeals had filed two separate petitions under Art. 226 · of the Constitution in the Bombay High Court in Gaj1nd.agadkar f· which they had challenged the vires of s. 6(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (LXVII of 1948) (hereafter ca.lied the Act) and the validity of the notification issued by the Government on October 17, 1952, under the provisions of the said s. 6(2). It appears that on June 23, 1949, in exercise of the powers conferred by s. 6(2) of the Act, the Government had issued notification fixing " in the case of an irrigated land 1/5 and in the case of any other land 1/4 of the crops of such land or its value as determined in the prescribed manner as the maxi-mum rent payable by the tenants of the lands situate in the area.a specified in the schedule appended there-to". Amongst the areas thus specified was the area in which the appellanta' lands are situated. Subsequ-ently, on October 17, 1952, by virtue of the same powers and in supersession of all other earlier notifi-cations issued in that behalf the Government purport-ed to proscribe rate as the lower rate of maximum rent at which the rent shall be payable by the tenants in respect of the lands situate in _the areas specified in Schedule I appended to it. It is unnecessary to set out the rates thus prescribed; it would be enough to state that the rate of maximum rent prescribed by this notification is very much lower than the rate which had been fixed by the earlier one. By their petitions filed in the Bombay High Court the appellants con-tended that s. 6(2) was ultra vires, and that even if s. 6(2) was valid tho impugned notification was in-valid. Accordingly they prayed for a. writ of manda-mus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropria.te direction or order against the Government, the M.nmlatdar of the area concerned and their respective tenants prohibiting them or 11ony one of them from giving effect to the said notification.

They also claimed direction or order to the oppon-z960 ents directing them to cancel or withdraw the im-pugned notification. These two petitions were heard ;;;:~~:!; by the High Court along with other companion sanjanwala matters in which the same points were raiSed, and in .v. the result the High Court dismissed the petitions. It The State of held that s. 6(2) was intra vires and the impugned Bombay & Others notification was legal and valid. The appellants . d-dk t en app I1e [• ][d ]JOr [r ]an 'd o tame • cert1 'fi cate rom.t "I'" raga ar 1 . High Court, and it is with the said certificate that they have come to this Court by their two appeals.At the.outset it may be relevant to state that, sub-sequent to the decision under appeal, in 1956 the Act has been substantialy amended and now s. 8 of the new Act provides for the rent and its maximum and minimum. Shortly stated this section incorporates the provisions of the impugned notification and adds to it the further provision that in no case shall the rent be less than twice the assessment. In consequence the point raised in the present appeals has ceased to be of any importance; at best it may affect just few cases between landlords and tenants that may be" pending in respect of the rent payable by the latter to the former for period prior to 1956. At the time when the certificate was granted the questions raised by the appellants were undoubtedly of general im-portance ..

We would first read s. 6 of the Aot. Section 6(1)

provides that notwithstanding any agreement, usage, decree or order of court or any law the maximum rent payable by tenant for the lease of any land shall not in the case of an irrigated land exceed one-fourth and in the case of any other land exceed one. third of the crop of such land or its value as deter-mined in the prescribed manner. Section 6(2) provides that the Provincial Government may by notification in the official gazette fix lower rate of the maximum rent payable by the tenants of lands situate in any particular area or may fix such rate on any other suitable basis as it thinks fit. For the appellants Mr. Lima.ye has contended that s. 6(2) suffers from the vice of excessive delegation. His argument is that

r96o the power dolegat~d to the Provincial Government is unfettered and uncanalised and no guidance has been Vasa"tlal Maga>1bhai afforded to it for exercising the said power. He has sa~ja>1wala also relied on the fact that while giving such wide v. powers to the delegate in fixing the lower rate of tho The State of maximum rent the Legislature has not prescribed any Bo••bay <~ Others minimum as it should have done. The High Court •1"' [. ][d-dk ]raga ar 1 · · m [has held ]perm1ss1 • [that ]'l J > [the delegation ]J" 1m1ts · an as sue t [invoked ]h [ins. ]I ia. JI [6(2) ]enge to t [is ][with-]h vires of the said provision cannot succeed.

It is now well-established by the decisions of this Court that the power of deleg1~tion is constituent clem.ent of the legislative power as whole, and that in modern times when the Legislatures enact laws to meet the challenge of the complex socio-economic pro-blems, they often find it convenient and necessary to delegate subsidiary or ancillary powers to delegates of their choice for carrying out the policy laid down by their Acts. The extent to which such delegation is permissible is also now well.settled. The Legi~lature cannot delegate its essential legislative function in a.ny case. It must la.y down the legislative policy a.nd principle, a.nd must afford guidance for carrying out the said policy before it delegates its subsidiary powers in that ooha.lf. As ha.s been observed by Ma.ha.jan, C.J., in Hari8hankar Bagla v. The State of Madhya Pra-desh(') " the Legislature cannot delegate its function of laying down legislative polfoy in respect of mea-sure and its formulation as rule of conduct. The Legislature must declare the policy of the la.w and the legal principles which are to control a.ny given cases, and must provide a. standard to guide the officials or the body in power to execute the law ". In dealing with the cha.Henge to the vires of a.ny statute on the ground of excessive delegation it is, therefore, neces-sary to enquire whether the impugned delegation involves the delegation of a.n essential legislative func-tion or power and whether the Legislature has enun-ciated its policy a.nd principlo and given guidance to the delegate or not. As the decision in Bagla'8 case(') shows, in applying this test this Court has taken into (1) (19'5] 1 S.C.R, 381, 388.

account the statements in the preamble to the Act,

and if the said statements afford satisfactory basis for holding that the legislative policy and principle Va.~antlal Magan_bhai has been enunciated with sufficient accuracy and sanjanwala clarity the preamble itself has been held to satisfy the v. requirements of the relevant tests. In every case .it The St~te of would be necessary to consider the relevant provisions Bombay <!> Others of the Act in relation to the delegation made and the . d-dk "[1]1 question as to whether the delegation is intra. vires or '" raga •r · not will have to be decided by the application of the relevant tests.

In this connection we may also refer to the decision of this Court in The Edward Mills Co. Ltd., Beawar v. State of Ajiner ([1]), where the validity of the notifica-tion issued under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act XI of 1948 was impeached, and the said challenge raised the question about the validity of the delegation provided foYny s. 21 of the said Act. The scheme of the Act was that 4L schedule had been attached to it which gave list of employments to which the provisions of the Act applied; aild s. 27 gave power to the appropriate Government to add to either part of the schedule any employment in respect of which it was of opinion that the minimum wages sha.11 be fixed and this the appropriate Government was authorised to do by giving notification in a. broad manner, and thereupon the schedule shall, in its application to the State, be deemed to be amended according If. . The argument was that the Act had nowhere formulated legislative policy according to which an employment should be chosen for being included in the schedule ; no principles had been pres-cribed and no standards laid down in that behalf, and so the . delegation was unfettered and uncana.lised. This argument was rejected by this Court on the broad considera.tio9, that the legislative policy was apparent on the face of the Act itself. " What the Act aims at ",observed Mukherjee., J ., as he then was, "is the statutory fixation of minimum wages with view to obviate the chance of exploitation of la.hour •

. (1) [1955] I S.C.R. 735, 750. 45

1960 The Legislature undoubtedly intended to apply this Vosantlal Act not to a.II industries but to those industries only Maganhhai whero by reason of unorganiscd labour or want of pro-s.,,1.1iu·ala per arrangements for effective regulation of wages or v. for other causes the wages of labourers in particular The State [0]1 industry were very low". The learned Judge then Bombay~ [01]""' pointed out that conditions of la.hour vary under Gajendragadkar 1. different circumstances and from State to State, and the expediency of including a. particular trade or industry within the schedule depends upon variety of facts which a.re not uniform and which can best be ascertained by the person who is placed in charge of administration of particular State. It is with view to carry out the particular purpose of the Act that power is delegated to the appropriate Govern-ment by s. 27. That is how the challenge to tho vires of s. 27 was repelled.The present Act is undoubtedly benificent measure. It has enacted provisions for agrarian re-form which the Legislature thought was overdue. The preamble shows that the object of the Act, inter a.lia., was to improve the economic and social condition of peasants and ensure the full and efficient use of land for agriculture. With ~ha.t object the Act has made several provisions to 8afegua.rd the interests of the tenants. Let us consider some of these provisions. Section 6 which we have already set out prescribes the maximum rent payable by a. tenant, and provides for the reduction of the said maximum by reference to particular areas. Sect.ion 7 lays down that the rent pa.ya.hie by tenants shall, subject to the maximum rate fixed under s. 6, be the rent a.greed between the parties, or in the abs1mce of any agreement or usage, or where there is a. disput.e as regards the reasonable-ness of the rent pa.ya.hie according t-0 the agreement or usage, the rea.eonahle rent. It is thus clear that even in regard to an agreed rent or rent fixed by usage, if a. tenant raises a. dispute a.bout its reasonableness that dispute bas to be settled in the ma.oner prescribed by the Act and the a.mount of reasonable rent determined. Section 8 provides for commutation of crop-share rent into ca.sh. Section 9 prohibits a. landlord from receiv-ing from hie tenant a.ny rent in terms of service or

labour; and it requires him to apply to the Mamlatdar '9[60]. for commuting such rent into cash. Section 10 pro-· vasantlal; vides for refund ofexcess rent recovered by the land-Maganbhai lord from his tenant. Section 11 prohibits the recovery sanjanwala by the landlord of any cess, rate, vero, huk or tax or v. service of any description from the tenant other than The State of the rent lawfully due from such land. Section 12 pro- Bombay_°:_ Others vides for enquiries in regard to the fixation of reason- Gajendragadkar J. · able rent. On an application made by the tenant or the landlord in that behalf the Mamlatdar has to determine the reasonable rent under s. 12(3) having regard to the factors specified in the said sub-section. These factors are (a) the rental values of lands used for similar purposes in the locality, (b) the profits of agriculture of similar lands in the locality, (c) the prices of crops and commodities in the locality, (d) the improvements made in the land by the landlord or the tenant, (e) the assessment payable in respect of the land, and (f) such other factors as may be prescribed. There is no doubt that the last clause which refers to other factors must be construed as referring to factors ejusdem generis with those that have been previously enumerated. Section 13 provides for the suspension or remission of rent, and the conditions under w bich the said remission or suspension can be granted. It would thus be seen that the material provisions of the Act aim at giving relief to the tenants by fixing the maximum rent payable by them ahd by providing for speedy machinery to consider their complaints about the unreasonableness of the rent claimed from them by their respective landlords. It is in the light of this policy of the Act which is writ large on the face of these provisions that we have to consider the question as to whether the delegation made by s, 6(2) suffers from the infirmity of excessive delegation. Broadly stated s. 6(2) seeks to provide for the fixa-tion of lower rate of maximum rent area-wise. We· have already seen that individual tenants are given the right to apply for the fixation of reasonable rent by s. 12, and specific factors have been specified which the Mamlatdar must consider in fixing reasonable rent. The Legislature realised that large number oftenants in the Stato were poor, ignorant and in many cases helpless, and and it was thought that many thought that many that many many of them may not be able .to make individual applications for for the fixation fixation of reasonable rent rent undN s. 12. That i8 i8 why it was thought necessary to confer necessary to confer upon the Pro-vincial Go,·ermnent the , the power ( to fix lower , rate of , t maxunurn rent payable >y tl·nants m respect of m respect of ./-particular areas. areas. In sense sense what could be could be done by the l\tarnlatdar in individual cases can be a.chievecl bv the Provincial Go\·ernment in respect of large number of cases covered in particular area. If that be so, the )pgisla.tive policy haYing been clearly expressed in the relevant provisions and tl11• factors for determining reasonable rent also having been spPcified in s. 12(3), it is difficult to accept the argument that the Provincial Go\·ernmcnt has hmm given uncan-alised or unfettered powers by s. 6(2) t{> do what it. likes without any guidance. The relernnt factors having been specified bys. 12(3) when the Provin~ial Government considers the question of fixing lower rate of the maximum rent payahle in any parti. cular area it is expected to adopt:' basis which i8 suitable to that particular area.. The relevant concli-tions of agriculture would not be t.111iform in diffort>nt areaR and the prohkm of fixing rNiucP<l maximum rent payable in the rPspectin· areas would ha,·e to b" tackle<l in the light of the special features and condi-tions of that area; t.bat is why ccrtaiu amount of latitude had to be left to the Government in fixing thP lower rate of the mi,ximum rent iu the resp<•cti,·e areas, and that is intended to be a.chicYed by gi\'iug it liberty to adopt basi8 which it thinks i~ Huit.able for the area in quc•stion. The word "suitable" in the context must mean 'suitable to the area' having regard to the other proYisions of the Act 8Uch as s. 6(1) and s. 12. It is true that the power to fix a. reasonable rent conferred on the :llarulatdar under s. 12 is subject to the power of the Provincial Govern-ment und!'r s. 6(2). Even so we think it would lie difficult to hold that the factors prescribed for t.hc guidance of the l\1amlatdar would have no relevance at all when the Provincial Government acts under

vawol/al cases helpless, and and it was thought that many thought that many that many many of them .\/aga .. i,1,,,; may not be able .to make individual applications for for Sa111amrnla the fixation fixation of reasonable rent rent undN s. 12. That i8 i8 _) "· why it was thought necessary to confer necessary to confer upon the Pro-1," 51" 1' of vincial Go,·ermnent the power to fix lower rate of n 01,,uay \;.. Othtr$ , ( , _ t maxunurn rent payable >y tl·nants m respect of m respect of Gajtndragadhou ./-particular areas. areas. In sense sense what could be could be done by

'9[60 ]

s. 6(2). In our opinion, therefore, having regard to the

legislative policy laid down by the Act in its preamble Vasantlal and in the other relevant sections to which we have Maganbhai referred, and having regard to the guidance which has Sanjanwala been provided for fixing reasonable rent under v. s. 12(3), it would not be possible to hold that the power The State of . . l delegate to t P rovrnma overnment y s. 6[(]2[) ][Bombay ]_ [& ][Others ]suffers from the infirmity of excessive delegation. Gajendragadhar J. The fact that no minimum has been. prescribed would not materially affect this position.

Mr. Limaye has then contended that even if s. 6(2)

is valid the impugned notification is invalid because it offends against Art. 31 of the Constitution. He con-cedes that the Act itself is saved under Art. 31B since it is one of the Acts enumerated in the Ninth Sche-dule ; but his argument is that the notificatio11 has in substance amended the provisions of s. 6(1) and thus it amounts to fresh legislation to which Art. 31B cannot apply. There is no substance in this argument. Ifs. 6(2) is valid then the exercise of the power validly conferred on the Provincial Government cannot be treated as fresh legislation which offends against Art. 31. If the Act is saved by Art. 31B s. 6(2) is also saved, and the power must be held to be valid-ly conferred on the Provincial Government, and notification issued by virtue of the said powers cannot be challenged on the ground that it violates Art. 31.

The next argument is that the notification is inva-lid because the power to issue notification conferred by s. 6(2) was exhausted as soon as the Government issued the first notification on June 23, 1949. This argument proceeds on the assun:iption that the power conferred on the Government by s. 6(2) can be exer-cised only once, and it seeks to derive· support from the fact that the words " from time to time " which were used in the corresponding section of the earlier tenancy legislation in the State have not been used in s. 6(2). Reliance is also placed on the fact that the said words have been used in s. 8(1) of the Act. The omission of the said words from s. 6(2) as contrasted with their inclusion in s. 8(1), says Mr. Limaye, indi-cates that the power delegated under s. 6(2) was

intended to be ua1~d only onco. This argument is fallacious. \\'hy tho Lrgisla.ture did 11ot use the words "from time to time" in s. 6(2) when it used them in s. 8(1) it is difficult to un ersta.n ; but in construing s. 6(2) it is obviously necessary to apply the provisions of s. s. 14 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 (I of 1904). Section 14 µro\·idcs that where by any Berni-bay Act made after tho commencement of this Act any power 1s • con crre on j" avy overnrnent th en t ] rn.t power may be r:.<erci~ed from time to time as occasion requires. Quite clearly ifs. 6(2) is read in the.light of s. 14 of the Bombay Genera.I Clauses Act it must follow that the p01\·er to issue a. notification can be exercised from time to time a.s occasion requires. It is true that s. 14 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (X of 1897), provides that where any power is conferred by any Central Act or Regulation then, un-less different intention appears, that power may bo exercised from time to time as occasion requires. Since there is specific provision of tho Bombay Genl'ra.1 Clauses Act relevant on the point it is unnecessary to take recourse to s. 14 of tho Central Genera.I Clauses Act; but even if W•l were to assume that the power in question can be exercis~d from time to time unless a. difforent intention appears we would feel no difficulty in holding that no such different intention can be attributed to the Legislature when it enacted s. 6t2). It is obvious that having prescribed for maximum by s. 6(1) the Legi3lature ha.s deliberately provided for modification of the said maximum rent and that itself shows that the fixation of any maximum rent was not treated a~ immutable. If it was necessary to issue one notification under s. 6(2) it would follow by force of tho same logic that circumstances may re-quire the iHsue of fort her notification. The tixa.tion of agricultural rent depends upon so many uncertain factors which may vary from time to time and from place to place that it would he idlo to contend that the Legislature wanted to fix the maximum only once, or, as 1\Ir. Lima.ye concedes, twice. Therefore the argument that the power to issue noti!icat.ion has been exhausted cannot be sustained.

Varnutln! ,\Jaga,1bJ,a1 Sauja.,,wla s. 8(1) v. s. 6(2) n,, State of of s. s. Bombay & Oil"'' 1904). -Ga)t"d'"g"dha' ].

The last argument which Mr. Limaye faintly 196o attempted to place before us was that the expression 1[, ][asantlal ]"any particular area" would not be applicable to the Maganbhai areas in which the appellants' lands are situated sanjanwala because, according to him, the expression should be v. construed in the light of the same e)(pression used in The State of s. 298(2)(a) of the Government of India Act, 1935. Bombay &- Others This ar~ument is far fetched and fatuous and need not Gajendragadkar 1. be considered.

In the result the appeals fail and are dismissed with

costs.

SuBBA RAO J.-1 have had the advantage of peru-sing the judgment prepared by Gajendragadkar, J. I regret my inability to agree with my learned brother on the question of the vires of s. 6(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (LXVII of 1948) (hereinafter called the Act).

Subba Rao J.

The facts have been fully stated in the judgment of my learned brother and" I need not restate them here. It would be enough if I expressed my opinion on the said question.

Leitrried counsel for the appellants attacks the con. stituCional validity of s. 6(2) on the ground that the said sub-section exceeds the limits of permissible dele-gated legislation. Before considering the validity of s. 6(2), it would be convenient to notice briefly the relevant aspects of the law of the doctrine of delegated legislation.

The scope of the doctrine of delegation of legisla-tion has been so authoritatively laid down by this Court in more than one decision that it would be pedantic to attempt to resurvey , the field over again. I would, therefore, be content to collate the relevant passages from the decisions of this Court to ascertain the principle underlying the doctrine.

The leading decision. on this subject is In re The Delhi Laws Act, 1912 ('). There the Central Legisla-ture had empowered the executive authority under its legislative control to apply at its discretion the laws to an area which was also under the legislative sway of the Centre. The validity of the .laws was questioned (1) [1951] S.C.B. 747.

r96o on the ground that the legislature had no power to delegate legislative powers to executive authorities. Vasantlal Maganbhai As many as seven Judges dealt with the question and Sanjanwala wrote seven separate judgments considering elabo-v. rately the different aspects of the question raised. I The State of am relieved of the duty to ascertain the core of the Bombay & Others decision as that has been done by Bose, J., with Snbba Rao }. clarity in Racinarain Singh J v. The Chairman, Patna Administration Committee, Patna ([1]). Bose, J., after pointing out the seven variations of the authority given to the executive in the Delhi Laws Act Case ('), summarized the majority view on the relevant aspect of the question now raised at p. 301 thus:

"In our opinion, the majority view was that an executive authority can be authorised to modify either existing or future laws but not in any essential feature. Exactly what constitutes an essential feature cannot be enunciated in general terms, and there was some divergence of view about this in the former case, but this much is clear from the opinions set out above: it cannot include change of policy."

Rajnarain Singh's Case ([1]) dealt with s. 3(1) of the Patna Administration Act, 1915, (Bihar and Orissa Act 1 of 1915) as amended by Patna Administration (Amendment) Act, 1928 (Bihar and Orissa Act IV of 1928) and with notification issued by the Governor of Bihar picking out s. 194 out of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act of 1922, modifying it and extending it in its modified form to the Patna Administration and Patna Village areas. Bose, J., after pointing out the difference between Rajnarain Singh' s Case (1) and the Delhi Laws Act Case (') observed at p. 303 thus :

"But even as the modification of the whole can-

not be permitted to effect any essential change in the Act or an alteration in its policy, so also modi-fication of part cannot be permitted to do that either." This Court·again in Harishankar Bagla v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (') considered the scope of the Delhi Laws Act Case ('). Mahajan, C. J., stated at p. 388 thus:

(1) [1955] 1 $.C.R. 290.

(2) [1951] S.C.R. 747.

" It was settled by the majority judgment in the 196o Delhi Laws Act Case (') that essential powers of legis-vasantlal lation cannot be delegated. In other words, the Maganbhai legislature cannot delegate its function of laying down sanf•nwala legislative policy in respect of measure and its for-v. mulation as rule of conduct. The Legislature must The State of declare the policy of the law and the legal principles~ombay & .Others which are to control any given cases and must pro- .5 b~--;· 00 1 vide standard to guide the officials or the body in " • power to execute the law. The essential legislative function consists in the determination or choice of the legislative policy and of formally enacting that policy into binding rule of conduct."

In The Edward Mills Co., Ltd., Beawar v. The State of Ajmer (2), Mukherjea, J., as he then was, speaking for the Court stated the principle thus at p. 749:

" Legislature cannot certainly strip itself of its

essential functions and vest the same on an extra-neous authority. The primary duty of law making has to be discharged by the Legislature itself but delegation may be resorted to as subsidiary or an ancillary measure."

The latest decision on. the point is that in Hamdard

Dawakhana v. Union of India('). One of the ques-tions raised in that case was whether s. 3(d) of Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, exceeded the permissible limits of delegated legislation. The principle has been restated by Kapur, J., at p. 566 thus:

"This .means that the legislature having laid

down the broad principles of its policy in the legisla-tion can then leave the details to be supplied by the administrative authority. In other words by dele-gated legislation the delegate completes the legislation by supplying details within the limits prescribed by the statute and in the case of conditional legislation the power of legislation is exercised by the legislature conditionally leaving to the discretion of an external

(1) [1951] S.C.R. 747·

(2) [1955] I S.C.R. 735·

(3) [1960] 2 S.C.R. 67_1.

authority the time and manner of carrying its legis-lation into effect as also tho determination of the area. to which it is to extend."

Vasantlal to which it is to extend." Maganbhai · San;anwala Applying the principle to the facts of that case, the v. learned Judge observed at p. 568 thus: ne Staie [0]1 "In our view the words impugned a.re vague. Bombay & Others Parliament has established no criteria., no standards Subba Rao ;. aud has not prescribed any principle on which a. particular disease or condition is to be specified in the Schedule. It is not st1~ted what facts or circumstances a.re to be ta.ken into consideration to include parti-cular condition or disease. The power of specifying diseases and conditions as given in s. 3(d) must there-fore be held to be going beyond permissible bounda-ries of valid delegation.

It is not necessary to multiply decisions; nor is it

necessary to point out the subtle distinction between delegated legislation and conditional legislation. The law on the subject may be briefly stated thus: Tho Constitution confers power and imposes a. duty on the lt>gislaturo to make laws. The essential legislative function is the determination of the legislative policy and its formulation as a. rnlo of conduct. Obviously it cannot abdicate its functions in favour of another. But in view of tho multifarious activities of a. welfare State, it cannot presumably work out a.II the details to suit the varying aspects of complex situation. It must necessarily delegate tho working out of details to the executive or any other agency. But there is danger inherent in.such process of dele,ga.tion. An overburdened legislature or one controlled by powerful executive may unduly overstep the limits of delegation. It may not lay down any policy at all; it may declare its policy in vague and general terms; it may not set down any standard for the guidance of the executive; it may confer an arbitrary power on the executive to change or modify the policy laid down by it without reserving for itself any control over subordinate legislation. This self effacement of legislative power in favour of another agency either in whole or in part is beyond the permissible limits of dele-gation. It is for Court to hold on a. fair, generous

and liberal construction of an impugned statute i96o whether the legislature exceeded such limits. But the Vasantlal said liberal construction should not be carried by the Maganbhai Courts to the extent of always trying to discover Sanjanwala dormant or latent legislative policy to sustain an v. arbitrary power conferred on executive authorities. It The State [0]! is the duty of this Court to strike down without any Bombay & Others hesitation any arbitrary power conferred on the exe-Subba Rao J. cutive by the legislature.

Bearing the aforesaid principles in mind, I shall look at the provisions of the Act to ascertain whether s. 6(2) is in conformity with the law laid down by this Court .. I shall for the present ignore s. 6(2) and briefly and broadly notice the scheme of the Act. The pre-amble shows that the object of the Act was mainly to improve the economic and social conditions of peas-ants and to ensure the full and efficient use of land for agriculture. It also indicates that the Act was not intended to be confiscatory one, but was enacted to regulate the relationship between land-lord and tenant, particularly in respect of rent payable by the tenant to the land-lord. In s. 6(1) the legislature in clear terms fixes the maximum rent payable by tenant, having regard to the nature of the land: in the case of irrigated land it fixes one-fourth and in the case of other land one-third of the crop of ~uch land or its value as determined in the prescribed manner as the maximum rent. The rest of the Act is to be worked out subject to the maximum rent fixed under s. 6(1). Section 7 enables ·the land-lord and tenant to agree upon the rate of rent. Section 8 gives power to the Provincial Government to issue notifications providing for the commutation of the rent in kind into cash rent. It also, if no rate of commutation has been so fixed by the State Government, enables the Mamlatdar to fix the amount of commutation in the manner prescribed. Sub-section (3) of s .. 6 prohibits land-lord from recovering any rent by way of crop-share or in excess of the commuted cash rent. Section 9 com-pels the land-lord to apply to the Mamlatdar, if the land-lord is receiving rent from any tenant in terms of service or labour, for commuting such rent into196o cash. Section 10 makes the landlord liable to pay compensation to the tenant if he contravenes the pro. Vasaxllal Maga•b,,ai visions ofss. 6, 7, 8 or 9. Section 11 prohibits t sanjanwala land.lord from collecting any cesses other than the v. rent lawfully payab)E, in respect of the land. Sec. The State [0]1 tion 12 enables the tenant to apply to the Ma.mla.tda.r Bombay .s. Othm for the fixation of reasonable rent in respect of the Subb• Rao J. land in his posseBBion a.nd s. 12(3) lays down the fa.c. tors the Mamlatdar has to take into consideration in fixing reasonable rent. After fixing the rent, the Mamlatdar makes an order for payment of the rent to the Ja.nd-lord and the rent so fixed shall hold good for period of five years. There is also provision for reduction of rent, if during the said period on account of deterioration of the land by floods or other causes beyond the control of the te·nant the land has been wholly or partially rendered unfit for cultivation. Sec. tion 13 enjoins on the land-lord to suspend or remit the rent pa.ya.hie by the tenant to him if the payment of land revenue by him to the Government is sus. pended or remitted. right of appeal is provided against the order of the Mamlatda.r to the Collector. Shortly stated, this Act provides for the fixation of maximum rent by the Government, reasonable rent by Mamlatdar and an agreed rent by the parties. But both the agreed rent and the reasonable rent cannot exceed the maximum rent. There a.re express provi-siims for reduction or remission of rent in appropriate circumstances. The Act does not provide for an appeal or revision to the Government and the Govern-ment has, therefore, no say in the matter of fixation of reasonable rent. The whole scheme of the Act, therefore, excluding s. 6(2), is self-contained and ·integrated one. The legislature fixes the maximum rent Jinked with crop having regard to the nature of the land, and the other provisions enable the appro-priate authorities to fix reasonable rent subject to that maximum.

Now Jet us see the impact of s. 6(2) on this scheme. Section 6(2) reads :

"The Provincial Gov~rnment may, by notifica-

tion in the Official Gazette, fix lower rate of the

maximum rent payable by the tenants of lands situate in any particular area or may fix such rate on any other suitable basis as it thinks fit."

Vasantla{ Maganbhai Sanjanwala v. T:e State 0~

Under this &ection the Provincial Government may fix lower rate of the maximum in any particular

area or to fix such rate on any other suitable basis. T:e State 8

8 Three elastic words are used in s. 6(2), namely, (l) om ay & [01 ]"'

lower rate; (2) particular area; and (3) on any other Subba Rao J. suitable basis. Prima facie in s. 6(2) the legislature has not laid down any policy or any standard to enahle the Provincial Government to reduce the maximum rent fixed under s. 6(1). What is the limit of the lower rate the Government is empowered to fix ? What is the eJ>tent of the area with reference to which that rate can be fixed? \Vhat are the condi-tions prevailing in particular area which require the reduction of the maximum rent? Even if there are conditions justifiable for reduction of the maximum rent, what is the basis for that reduction? The dis-junctive "or " between " particular area " and "may fix " and the word " other" qualifying . "suitable basis " indicate that the situation of \the land in particular area may also be basis for fixing lower rent. The situation of land in particular area cannot in itself afford basis for fixing specified rate of maximum rent. The words "suitable basis " in the alternative clause is so vague that in effect and substance they· confer absolute and arbitrary discre-tion on the Provincial Government. What is the standard of suitability ? The standard of suitability is only what the Government thinks suitable. In this section the legislature in clearest terms abdicated its essential functions in favour of the executive autho-rity without laying down any standard for its guid-ance. In effect it permitted the Government to amend s. 6(1) of the Act. To illustrate, the legislature fixes the maximum rent payable by tenant to his land. lord at X; the Mamlatdar after enquiry fixes Y as reasonable rent which is Jess than X ; the Govern-ment in exercise of the power conferred under s. 6(2) can arbitrarily fix Z which is far less than the reason-able rent; with the result that the entire scheme

promulgated by the 'legislature breaks. The Govern-ment a.!So may select any small area containing few Vasantlt:d landlords and reduce the. maximum rent to the lowest Maganbhai Sanjanwala level with the result the Act can be worked out as an v. expropria.tory measure which is contrary to the inten-Th• Sta!• of tion of the legis)ature. Learned counsel for the respon-Bombay &- Others denw. realising that arbitrariness is writ large on the Subb;;;ao J. · face of ·s. 6(2) attempted to evolve _the legislative .formula from the preamble to s.,6(1) and s.'12(3) of the Act. I cannot find any indfoation of the legisla-tive policy in the mltnner qf fixation of the lower rate of maximum rent in the preamble. Nor can I .dis-cover any such in s. 6(1). Section 6(1) contains a. clear legisla,tive policy in fi;xing the maximum rent on certain identifiable basis. The legislature says in effect in s. 6(2), "I have fixed the maximum rent in respect of irrigated lands and other lands on the basis of definite share of the crop of such lands, but y9u can reduce 'that maximum rent on any basis you like ". While s. 6( I). overrides other provisions of the Act, s. 6(2) derogates from s. 6(1) itself. Section 6(2) is capaljle of being, exercised in such a. way that the .object of s. 6(1) 'jg itself frustrated. Section 6(1) in effect is made subject to s. 6(2).Now coming to s. 12(3), it is cqntended that the factors mentioned in s. 12(3) afford standard for the Go11ernment for fixing the maximum rent. To put it differently the suitable basi& js one or other of the factors in s. 12(3). The Act does not say so, either expressly . or by nece~sary implication. The nriteria for fixing rent in s. 13 are to afford guide to Mamlii.-tdar for fixing reasonable rent. Indeed the sub-clause is subject to s .. 6 in.dicating thereby that the maximum rent fixed by the Government is not the same as the reasonable rent. Indeed if the reasonable rent deter-mined on the basis of all or some of the factors in s. 12(3) is more than the maximum rent fixed by the Go.vernmeµt on a•. suitable basis, the latter prevails over the former. .As the maximum rent supersedes reasGnable rent, the factors governing reasonable rent need not necessarily goyern the.fixation of maximum rent. To ·att,empt to read the factors in s. 12(3) inyo ,

s. 6(2) is, in my view, not permissible. On fair r96o reading of the provisions of the Act, I find it not v a:;;;lal a:;;;lal possible to discover any stanaard laid down by the Maganbhai legislature to·enable the Provincial Government to fix Sanjanwala lower rate Of the maximum rent. The section con-. v. ferring such arbitrary power on the Provincial Govern-Th• Stat• of ment without Jaying down any legislative standard is Bombay c;. Others in excess of the permissible Jimits·of delegation. Subba Rao -J.

v a:;;;lal a:;;;lal Maganbhai Sanjanwala v. Th• Stat• of c;. Subba Rao -J.

The learned Additional Solicitor-General broadly contended. that the policY. .of the legislature is to pre-vent rackrenting and to fix reasonable.rent and, therefore, any exercise of the power under s. 6(2) is guided by that policy. This is an ex~reme contention and, if accepted, will enable Parliament and. legis-latures to confer al;isolute and unguided powers on the executive. If legisla'ture can legally be permitted to lay down broad policy in general terms and confer arbitrary powers on the executive for carrying it out, there will be an end of the doctrine of the rnle of law. If the· contention be correct, the legislature in the present case could have stated in the preamble ,that they were making the law for fixing the maximum rent and could: have conferred an absolute power on the Governm,ent to fix suitable rents' having regard to the circumstances of each case. Such Jaw cannot obviously be valid. When the decisions say that the legislature shall lay down .the legislative policy and its formulation as rule of conduct, they do not mean vague and general declaration of policy, but definite policy .controlling and regulating the powers confer-red on the executive for carrying into effect that policy.

I must, therefore, hold that s. 6(2) of the Act is void inasmuch as it exceeded the permissible limits of legislative delegation.

I.n the result the appeals a.re allowed with· costs.

BY COURT : In view of the ·majority judgmebt, the appeals a.re dismissed with,oosts.