Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the earlier rule fixing society commission at 5% revived after the substituted rule prescribing 2.69% ceased to operate, and whether section 6-C of the U.P. General Clauses Act applied so as to bring about such revival.
Analysis: The governing scheme empowered the State Government under sections 18 and 28 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 to prescribe the rate of society commission by rules. The original rule 49 was expressly deleted and replaced by a new rule 49, and the substitution was confined to a stated period. The Court treated this as a case of repeal by substitution, not merely a suspension of the old rule. On that basis, once the substituted rule expired, the earlier rule did not automatically spring back into force. The Court further held that section 6-C of the U.P. General Clauses Act could not be relied on for revival because section 20 of that Act did not extend section 6-C to statutory rules framed under the parent Act.
Conclusion: The earlier rule did not revive, section 6-C of the U.P. General Clauses Act was inapplicable, and the demand to levy society commission at 5% was unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an existing rule is expressly repealed and substituted by a new rule, the earlier rule does not revive on expiry of the substituted rule unless the statute expressly provides for such revival or the general revival provision is applicable to the subordinate legislation.