Valid extension of a special tenancy ordinance and its overriding effect defeated reliance on earlier criminal proceedings.

A notification extending the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 was treated as a valid legislative extension made with the Rajpramukh's approval, and any defect in form was held not to invalidate it. The Ordinance was also held to operate with overriding effect under its own terms, so earlier criminal procedure proceedings did not displace the special remedy created by the enactment. On that basis, the Board of Revenue's order could not be quashed merely because of prior proceedings under general law, and the petition failed on the substantive grounds raised.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the notification extending the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 was validly issued and had the effect of continuing the Ordinance in force; (ii) whether the Ordinance operated notwithstanding the earlier proceedings under the criminal procedure law and the Board of Revenue's order could be quashed on that basis.

Issue (i): Whether the notification extending the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 was validly issued and had the effect of continuing the Ordinance in force.

Analysis: The extension power was treated as part of the legislative competence of the Rajpramukh and not as an unlawful delegation. The notification was held to have been issued with the Rajpramukh's approval and to operate in accordance with the Ordinance's own terms. The requirements of Article 212A were held to be sufficiently met for a valid legislative extension, and any irregularity in form was held not to invalidate the extension.

Conclusion: The notification validly extended the Ordinance for a further period.

Issue (ii): Whether the Ordinance operated notwithstanding the earlier proceedings under the criminal procedure law and the Board of Revenue's order could be quashed on that basis.

Analysis: Section 3 of the Ordinance gave it overriding effect over contrary laws, rules, orders, instruments, or usage. The Board's finding on possession was accepted as falling within the remedy created by the Ordinance, and the earlier criminal proceedings did not displace the operation of the special enactment.

Conclusion: The Board's order was not liable to be quashed on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed on all substantive grounds and was dismissed, with costs left to be borne by each party.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special enactment is validly continued by the competent legislative authority, that enactment prevails according to its overriding clause and cannot be defeated by reliance on inconsistent earlier proceedings or general procedural law.

---