Delegated legislative power upheld where statute gave clear policy, valid rent notification survived, and repeated exercise was permitted.

Section 6(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was upheld as valid because the statute disclosed a clear policy of fixing maximum rent, regulating reasonable rent and protecting tenants, leaving only an ancillary power to set a lower ceiling for specified areas. The notification issued under that provision was also upheld, since it was an exercise of valid statutory power and not fresh legislation offending Article 31. The power under section 6(2) was further held not to be exhausted by one notification and could be exercised again from time to time under the general principles governing delegated legislation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 6(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 suffered from excessive delegation and was therefore void; (ii) whether the notification issued under section 6(2) was invalid as offending Article 31 of the Constitution; (iii) whether the power under section 6(2) was exhausted by the first notification and could not be exercised again.

Issue (i): Whether section 6(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 suffered from excessive delegation and was therefore void.

Analysis: The majority held that the Act disclosed a clear legislative policy in its preamble and in its scheme of fixing maximum rent, regulating reasonable rent, and protecting tenants. Section 6(1) fixed the maximum rent, while section 12(3) supplied relevant factors for determining reasonable rent. Section 6(2), which permitted the Provincial Government to fix a lower maximum rent for particular areas or on a suitable basis, was read as operating within that legislative framework. The majority treated the power as ancillary and held that the legislature had not abdicated its essential function or conferred an unguided discretion.

Conclusion: Section 6(2) was held to be intra vires and not void for excessive delegation.

Issue (ii): Whether the notification issued under section 6(2) was invalid as offending Article 31 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The majority held that once section 6(2) was valid, a notification issued in exercise of that power could not be treated as fresh legislation offending Article 31. The Act itself was protected by Article 31B, and the notification was only an exercise of a validly conferred statutory power.

Conclusion: The notification was held not to be invalid under Article 31.

Issue (iii): Whether the power under section 6(2) was exhausted by the first notification and could not be exercised again.

Analysis: The majority held that the power under section 6(2) was not a one-time power. Read with section 14 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, it could be exercised from time to time as occasion required. The omission of the words "from time to time" in section 6(2) did not indicate a contrary legislative intent.

Conclusion: The power under section 6(2) was held to be exercisable more than once and had not been exhausted.

Final Conclusion: The majority upheld the validity of section 6(2) and the impugned notification, and the appeals failed. Subba Rao J. dissented and would have allowed the appeals on the ground that section 6(2) exceeded permissible limits of delegation.

Ratio Decidendi: A delegated power is valid where the statute lays down the legislative policy and provides sufficient guidance for its exercise, and a notification issued under such valid power is not fresh legislation merely because it alters the statutory maximum within the authorised framework.

---