Statutory power remains valid without rules where the Act says "as may be prescribed," unless rule-making is a condition precedent.

A statutory power to declare an area as an air pollution control area remains exercisable even if no rules have been framed prescribing the manner of declaration. Section 19 authorises the State Government, after consultation with the State Board, to notify such an area in the Official Gazette, and the phrase "as may be prescribed" is not a condition precedent unless the statute expressly makes rule-making mandatory before the power can operate. Where rules exist, the notification must conform to them; where they do not, the notification mechanism under the Act continues to function and the absence of rules does not invalidate the declaration.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the absence of rules prescribing the manner under Section 19 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the State Government could validly declare an area as an air pollution control area by notification in the Official Gazette.

Analysis: Section 19 empowers the State Government, after consultation with the State Board, to declare any area as an air pollution control area by notification in the Official Gazette in such manner as may be prescribed. Section 54(2)(k) enables rules to be framed as to the manner of such declaration, and Section 2(n) defines "prescribed" as prescribed by rules. The Court held that the expression "as may be prescribed" does not make the existence of rules a condition precedent to the exercise of the power. If rules are framed, the declaration must conform to them, but if no such rules exist, the statutory power to notify the area continues to operate through publication in the Official Gazette. The absence of rules therefore does not render the Act inoperative or invalidate the notifications issued.

Conclusion: The notifications declaring the area as an air pollution control area were valid notwithstanding the absence of rules, and the quashing of the charge was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the order quashing the charge was set aside, and the trial was directed to proceed in accordance with law on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute confers a power subject to rules "if any" or "as may be prescribed," the power remains exercisable even if no rules have been framed, unless the statute expressly makes rule-making a condition precedent.

---