Retrospective delegated legislation needs clear statutory authority; parliamentary laying does not validate an ultra vires rule.

Delegated legislation cannot operate retrospectively unless the parent statute expressly or by necessary implication authorises such effect. Section 40 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 did not confer power to amend rule 49 of the 1955 Rules with retrospective effect, so the Explanation inserted to rule 49 was ultra vires and could take effect only prospectively. A laying requirement before Parliament did not cure the defect, because parliamentary laying does not validate a rule made beyond the scope of the delegated power. The challenge therefore succeeded and the cancellation order concerning the allotment was quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Central Government, in exercise of power under section 40 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, could amend rule 49 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 with retrospective effect; (ii) whether the requirement of laying the rules before Parliament validated an otherwise unauthorised retrospective amendment.

Issue (i): Whether the Central Government, in exercise of power under section 40 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, could amend rule 49 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 with retrospective effect.

Analysis: Section 40 conferred rule-making power for carrying out the purposes of the Act, but it did not expressly or by necessary implication authorise the making of rules with retrospective operation. Subordinate legislation must remain within the limits of the delegated authority, unlike legislation by a sovereign legislature. In the absence of enabling language, the rule-making authority could not give retrospective effect to the Explanation added to rule 49.

Conclusion: The retrospective amendment was beyond power and the Explanation to rule 49 could operate only prospectively from the date of its insertion.

Issue (ii): Whether the requirement of laying the rules before Parliament validated an otherwise unauthorised retrospective amendment.

Analysis: The laying provision in section 40(3) contemplated a negative resolution procedure and did not cure a rule that was made outside the scope of the parent statute. Parliamentary laying did not prevent judicial scrutiny of whether the delegated legislation was intra vires the enabling provision.

Conclusion: The laying requirement did not validate the retrospective Explanation or save it from being struck down as ultra vires.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the cancellation order relating to the allotment was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Delegated legislation cannot be given retrospective effect unless the parent statute expressly or by necessary implication authorises such operation, and a laying provision does not validate a rule made beyond the scope of the delegated power.

---