Sugarcane society commission levy at 5%: substituted rule's lapse didn't revive old rule; appeal allowed

The dominant issue was whether the repealed "old" rule prescribing society commission revived after the substituted "new" rule ceased to operate, thereby authorising levy at 5% of the minimum statutory cane price. The SC held that, although the State had rule-making power under the Act to prescribe commission rates, the notification expressly "substituted" the old rule with a new rule, evidencing an intent to repeal and replace, not to keep the old rule in abeyance. Further, as the revival provision under section 6-C of the State General Clauses Act was not made applicable to the statutory rules, the old rule did not revive on the new rule becoming inoperative. The appeal and writ petition were allowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a statutory rule deleted and substituted by a new rule revives when the substituted rule ceases to operate; (ii) Whether section 6-C of the U.P. General Clauses Act applies to statutory rules so as to cause revival of the earlier rule on expiration of the substituted rule.

Analysis: The statutory scheme empowering prescription of commission rates is contained in section 18 and rule-making power is vested in the State under section 28 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953. The substitution effected by notification clearly deleted the old rule and replaced it with a new rule operative for a specified period; the substitution is not a mere temporary modification of the old rule. Precedents establish that where an old rule has been repealed and substituted by a new rule, the old rule does not revive on invalidation or cessation of the substituted rule unless the amendment itself is void or the legislature lacked competence to enact the substitution. Section 6-C of the U.P. General Clauses Act contains a carve-out for amendments made by temporary Acts, Ordinances or laws under Article 357; however, section 20 of the U.P. General Clauses Act prescribes which provisions apply mutatis mutandis to statutory instruments and does not include section 6-C. In absence of application of section 6-C to statutory rules under section 20, the special cessation rule in section 6-C is not available to cause revival of a prior statutory rule.

Conclusion: (i) The substituted statutory rule does not result in revival of the earlier deleted rule upon cessation of the substituted rule; (ii) Section 6-C of the U.P. General Clauses Act does not apply to statutory rules by virtue of section 20 and therefore cannot be invoked to revive the earlier rule. The challenge to the High Court decision is allowed and the impugned revival of the old rule is rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory rule is validly repealed and substituted by a new rule, the repealed rule does not revive on cessation of the substituted rule; and a provision of the General Clauses Act (section 6-C) will not apply to statutory rules unless made applicable by section 20 or otherwise expressly made applicable to such instruments.

---