Report No. 60
12.34. U.P. Amendment referred to.-
Incidentally, it may be noted that section 22 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904, as amended by section 22 of Schedule II of the U.P. Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 1956 (passed as Act 5 of 1957), has added certain words.
After the words "application of the Act", the words "or in the exercise of any power exercisable thereunder or under any enactment thereby amended", have been added. But, in the Allahabad case cited above,11 these words, though referred to, were not apparently relied upon by the Counsel for the State. After this judgment was pronounced, a validating Act was passed by the U.P. Legislature, but it was held to be futile.2
The Supreme Court upheld a later validating Act3 on the subject. The point of interpretation of the U.P. General Clauses Act was not, however in issue before the Supreme Court.
1. Adarsh Bhandar v. Sales Tax Officer, AIR 1957 All 475 (482), para. 36.
2. Bengali Mal v. Sales Tax Officer, AIR 1958 All 478.
3. J.K. Jute Mills v. Uttar Pradesh, (1962) 2 SCR 1.
12.34A. Orders of a substantive nature are not governed by the section, and, on this reasoning, it has been held1 that a detention order under Act 61 of 1962, made prior to the commencement of that Act, could not be justified under this section.
1. Venkateswarlu v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Hyderabad, AIR 1953 SC 49 (50).
12.34B. Where a particular part of an Act comes into force at once, and authorises the making of the rules, then obviously, the rules can come into force though the other parts do not come into force1.
1. Kandaszvami v. Emperor, 1918 ILR 42 Mad 69 (73) (Napier J.).
Back
