ORIENT WEAVING MILLS (P) LTD. versus THE UNION OF INDIA

3 S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

481

conveying the property when a mere loan was inten ded on the security of the property. It is unfor tunate, having regard to the provision of s. 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, that the plaintiff is debarred from proving that the transaction was in the nature of a mortgage. In the circumstances we direct that there will be no order as to costs throughout.

Appe,al allowed.

196!

K. Simrathmull '. S. Nanjalingioh Gowder

Shah J.

ORIENT WEAVING MILLd (P) LTD.

v.

1962

Ftb~uary 38.

THE UNION OF INDIA (B. P. SINHA, c. J., J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. c. SHAH and J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) Central Excise-Power of Central Government to grant exemption-Rule-Notification granting exemption to co-operah'.ve society-Constitutional mlidity-Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1of1944), ss. 37(2), cl. (xvii)-Central Excise Rules, 1944, r. 8(1)-Constitution of India, Arts, 14, 19(1)(/) and (g), 43.

By r. 8 (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, framed by the Central Government in exercise of its Power under s. 37(2) cl. xvii of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, "the time, by notification Central Government may from time to in the Official Gazette, exempt subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification any excisable goods for leviable on such go'.>ds." the whole or any part of the duty By two notifications issued under the said rule the Central Government exempted cotton· fabrics produced on po,ver looms owned Dy co-operative societies ti'om the duty leviable thereon subject to certain conditions. Under s 38 of the Act · the said rule and notifications on publication in the Official Gazette had effect as if enacted in the Act. The petitioners, apprehending loss of business in competition with the fifth respondent, a co-operative society, chal1enged the rule and the notifications on the grounds( I) that the power of exemption conferred on the Union Government violated Arts. 14, 19(l)(fl and (g} of the Constitution and (2) that assuming that it did

llMI

Orittil W talting Mills (P) Lld. y, 1 lu Union of lndi4

482 SUPREME COURT REPoRTs (1962] SUPP·

not do so, the exemption granted by the notifications excess of the power granted by r. 8(1).

\Vas in

field, that the contentions were \Vithout substance a1.d

must fail.

Rule 8 of the Rules was as much a part of the Act as s. 3712) cl. (xvii~ and it was always open to the State to tax certain classes of goods and not to tax others. the function of the State to .determine what hind of taxes should be levied and in what manner. R•gard being had to the directive principles contained in Art. 43 of the Constitution, there was no doubt that the State in differentiating between goods produced in big establishments and similar gocds pro· duccd by small power·loom weavers iu a co-oprrative societ', had made a classification that was constitutiona!Jy valid. There could, therefore, be no excessive dr.kgation of the power to grant exemption.

It wa5

It \\•as fallacious to contend that exemption,

if at all, had to be granted in respect of any particular specified variety of 'cotton fabrics', an<l not with reference to persons producing them. The tax was on the production of the goods but was payable by pcnons producing them. The exemption granted was, therefore, \vithin the ternls of the notifications.

ORIGINAL JuruSDlCTION : Petition Ko. llO of

of 1961.

Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of

India. for enforcement of Fundamonta.I Rights.

A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and R. Gopalakrishnan,

for the Petitioners.

K. N. Rajagopal SaBtri,P. K. Ghatterje.e and P. D.

Menan, for the respondents.

1962. February 28. The Judgment of the

Court wa.s delivered by

SINHA, C. J.- By this petition, under Art. 32 of the Constitution, tho petitioners cha.Henge the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Cen tral Excises and Sa.It Act (l of 1944) which will be referred in the course of this judgment as the Act, read with r.8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 ( 1!}60) and the notifioations thereunder, to be here inafter set out. The first petitioner is the Orient

1962

Oritrd Weaving Milla (P) Lfd,'

Vo The Union of Indi.~. . . - : , . l

'1·_.1-,

Sinha <':7-J. "'l ·~

3 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

48:!

Weaving Mills Private Ltd. (which will be termed hereinafter as the Company), and the second peti tioner is a director of the Company. The respon dents .to the petition are (1) Union of India, through the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), New Delhi, (2) Secretary, Central Board of Revenue, New Delhi, (3) Superintendent, Central Excise, Cuttack, (4) Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta, (5) Board of Directors, Madhunagar Powerloom Weavers' Co~ operative Society Ltd., through its President (to be hereinafter referred to as the Society).

the

The petition is founded on

following allegations. The Company is incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, with its head office at Nayabazar, Cuttack. The second peti tioner is the director of the Corn pany, which runs a weaving mill (Lt Nayabazar in Cuttack. There are 160 looms operating in the mill, and nearly 300 employees are employed in the factory, which produces, on the average, about 45 Jakh yards of cloth (4 1/2 million yards). The paid-up capital of the Company is Rs, 7, l0,000, divided into 7,100 shares of the value of Rs. 100 each. It has 8 directors, including a representative of the Govern ment of Orissa. The Company commenced pro duction on Octobt>r 1, 1955, and has been sustain ing functioning it started eversince the State of "due to adverse circumstances in Orissa and due to the heavy taxation and duties". Eversince the Company started production, it has been paying excise duty~Rs. 2,16,670 for the year l,82,529 for the year 1959-60 and 1958- 59, Rs. Rs. 2,15,500 for the year 1960-61. "Cotton fabrics" is one of the items in the first schedule of the Act, which sets out the description of goods and the rate of duty leviab!e under s. 3 of the Act. The petitioner's chief grievance is that the respondent No. 5, the Society, is being granted exemption

losses

1962 · · - on.ni.JY .... ., .. .• Millo (P) Ltd. . n. Ullia of Indio

--sa..c.J.

484 SUPREME COURT REPORTs (1962] SUPP.

from the excise duty, though, it is contended, it has installed I 00 looms in the same premises and 100 workmen are employed therein. The autho· rised capital of the aforesaid Society is lts.2,40 ,000, divided into shares of the value of Rs. 100 each. It is said to be a profit earning concern, whose profit is disposed of in accordance with its bye law 35. The Society, it is further contended, is for all practical purpose~ aimilarly situated along with the petitioner Company in the matter of production, distribution and marketing of their produce. It is further stated that the weavers of the Society stand on the same or similar footing as the shareholders of the Company. The exemp tion was granted to the Society in virtue of the Central Government Notification Xo. 74 of 1959, dated July 31, 1959, and .N'otifioation Xo. 70 of 1960, dated April 30, 1960, iBBued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, (Department of in these terms : Revenue). The notifications are "Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Dep1i.rtment of Revenue) ~ew Delhi. The 31st July, 1959.

G. S. R.

In pursuance of sub-mle (I) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules 1944 as in force in India and as applied to the State of Pondicherry, the Central Govt. hereby exempt cotton fabrics produced by any co-operative society formed of owners of cotton power• looms, which iB registered or which may be registered on or before the 31st March, I 961 un.der any law relating t0 co-operative so cieties, from the whole of the duty leviable thereon, subject following condi tions:-

the

to

(a) that every member of the co-opera tive societies had been exempt from excise duty for three years immediately precedin'g the date of his joining such society;

I

'

"· ' -

01Uni W1aViftR Mi/11 (P) Lid. _, Thi Union of lna11 Sinha o.J.

3 S,C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

485

(bl that the total number of cotton power!ooms owned by the co-operative so ciety is not mere than four times the number of members forming such society;

( c) that a certificate is produced by each member of the co-operative society from the State Govt. concerned or such Officer as may be nominated by the State the number of cotton powerloons in his ownership and ac tually operated by him does not exceed four and did not tixceed four at any time during the preceding the date of his joining the society, and that he would have been. exempt from excise duty even if he had not joined the co-operative society; and

three years

immediately

( d) that the exemption shall be avail

able ...

(i) for a period ending on the 31st July, in respect of registered co-operative 1962 societies which have commenced production prior to the date of this notification; and

(ii) for a period of three years from the dat.e of commencement of production in res pect of co-operative societies which have been registered "but have not commenced production or which may be registered on or before the :Hst March, 1961.

(No. 74/59) Sd/-Illegible S. K. Bhattacharjee,

Deputy Secretary to Govt. of India.

F. N'. 74/59/F. No. 13/59-CXIII".

"Government of

of .Finance (Department of Revenue) New Delhi. '.J.'he 10th April. 1960,

India, Ministry

1~62

Orit'11 I\' to-Vint , , Milli (P) L<d.

' ~"!t_t ~n.ion 3( India Sin~a C • ./,

486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.

N otifiwtion Central Exciso GSR.

In pursuance of 8Uh-rule (I) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as in force ii) India and as applied to the State of Pondicherry and in supersession of the Notifi· cation of the Govt. of India llinistry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 74/59- Central Excise dated the 31st July 1959 the Central Govt. hereby exeU1pts cotton fabrics produced on powerloom owned by any co operative 8ociety or owned by or allotter! to the members of the society, which is registered or which may bo register:·d on or before the :n st :lfarch 1961 under any law relating to co.operative societies from the wholo of the duty lcviable thereon, ~nbjr•rt to the following conditions :-

(a)

that every memher of the co-opera tive sociPtV who has been a manufacturer of cotton fab~ics on powerlooms has been exempt from excise dut.r for three years immediatB!y precl·ding the date of his jnininir such society;

(b)

that tho total number of cotton powerlooms owned by the co-operative society or owned by or allotted to its members is not more than four times the number of members forming such society.

(cl

that each member of the co-upora tivc society pro<lu<'.e a certificate from the Stat<> Govt. concerned or such ofticer as may be nominated by the State Govt. that he is a houafide m"mber of the society and that the num bcr •lf cotton powerlooms owned b.v or allotted to him and actually opt1rated bv him doe8 not "xceed four and did not exceed four at any time during the three years immedia wir preceding the date of his joining t~e

3 S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS 487

society, and that he would have been e~e:°1pt from excise duty even if h"' had not Jomed the co-operative societies and

( d) able ...

that , the exemption shall be avail

1962

Orient Weaving Mills (f) Ltd. Vo The Union of India

Sinha C. J.

(i)

for a period ending on the 3 lst July 1962 in respect of registered co· operative societies which have commen ced production prior to the date of the notification; and

(ii)

for a period of three years from the date of commencement of production in respect of co-operative societies which have been registered but have not com menced production or which may be registered on or before 31st March, 1961.

No. 70/60 Sd./Illegible G. P. Durairaj,

Under Secretary to the Govt. of ifndia

No. 70/60/P. No. 13/1/59 CXIII"

The Company made a representation to the relevant authorities but to no purpose. As the Company is to pay excise duty on the "cotton fa 1Jrics" produced l;y it, its cost of production, as compared to that of the Society, was higher by l :?.5% in 1958 and 10% in 1959, with the result that the Company is at a disadvantage, as compared to tho Society, in the competitive market of Orissa. Due to heavier taxation on fine cloth, the Company has abandoned the production of that quality and ha" restricted its production to coarse and medium cloth. The apprehension of the Company is that on account of the exemption granted to the Society, the Company's bn.iiness will be very adverselJ aifecteq. It is contended tqat r. 8 of the CeIJtr~l

1962

Orient lft2i.rin( Mills ,P) Lid. v. Tlit U11io1l of India

Sinha C . ./.

488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.

'

.

l!l44, under

Excise Rules, the Act, vests the Government with ungui<led power wholly or parti ally to uxempt. any goo<ls from the <luty lcviable under the Act ancl is, thernfore, dearly discrimina- tory as against the petitioner. The Government notifications exr.>mpting the Society, or such other similar societies as may horcitfter come into exis tence, have the effPCt of viol<J,ting the petitioners' funrfa.mcntal rights under Arts, 14 and 19(l)(f) & (g) of the Constitution. It is also conten<lc<l that th" power conferred upon the Government under the Rules, afore81tid, being ungilidcd and uncontrolled, goes beyond tho permiHsi ble limits of a vnlid dele gation, and is, therefore, voiri. The petitioners moved the High Court of Orissa under Art. 226 of thn Constitution, chal!Pnging the constitutionality of the Govr~rnment measures aforesaid, but the Court refused to grant any relief on the ground that it. had no jurisdiction to issue any wriL to the In the premises, Union Government in Xew Delhi. the petitioners prny for a declaration that the lovy of excise duty on the piece.goods produced by the pet.itioners be declared to be unconstitutional, and for a dirertion that tlw respondents 1-4 treat them on tho S<tme footing as the Sucit:ty and exempt them from the p/\yment of th<' excise duty, as also for an appropriate writ or order for the enforce ment of their fundamental right guaranteed under · Arts. 14 and 19( I )(f) & (g) of the Constitution.

The application was oppoRed on behalf of the respondents l ·4, and an affidavit sworn to by an Cnder Secretary, ~Iinistry of Finance (Department of Revcnnel Govcrnm<'nt of India, was filed in op It was stated on behalf of the Union posit.ion. Government and the Rev<'UUe that the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules, and t.he noti fications which have been impugned by the peti tioners, did not. infringe any provisionH of tho Constitution, and that the exemption grant<ld to the society was in pursuance of the well recognised

1962

Orient W11r11'tig Mills (P}Ltd. v. The Union •f India Sinha c. J.

3 S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

489

t

'

d

principle, being acted upon by the Government, to confer self-employment benefits in the interest of 'th d 11 a view o encourage sma pro ucers, an w1 cottage industries and small scale industries em· ploying· a limited num her of hands. The Society, it was contended,· was not the owner of the power- looms, but each weaver was the owner of not more than 4 powerlooms: the Society was run on a co- operative basis for the benefit of the weavers, who shared the profits earned hy working on a co- operative basis, by sale of the cloth produced by each weaver on his looms, after paying for the services rendered by the Society to its members; hence it was not correct to characterise the Society as running a mill with an installed capacity of 100 looms. It is further stated that the ,Society, as such, is not a profit earning concern, as wrongly the petitioners. The contended on behalf of Society, under the sanctioned scheme, purchases · the cloth produced by the weaver on his looms at a price equivalent to the cost of the raw materials, . cost of the services rendered by the Sc.iciety and cost of labour of the weaver, plus a margin of profit for him. The Society undertakes the sale of the piece-goods produced by the weaver without mak· ing any profit to itself, except that it levies hand- ling charges, which nre paid by the buyer. If the Society makes any savings out of the handling charges thus realised, the weaver gets a share of the savings by way of dividend. Unlike the Com- · pany, the Society is not the. owner of the looms. The Society is only a servant of the weaver-owners and renders them services, which they need, to help them to market their produce. The Society is, thus, only an organisation which assists all individual owners of looms in the production and· sale of the products of their reBpective looms, for their exclusive benefit. It is, therefore, claimed thrtt the exemption granted in respect of the goods produceq in co-operative societies, of wqich tlj()

1962

Ork11t W "'"; n1 Mill•. (P) Lid. •• Tiu Union of India

SinAa C. J.

490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (l!l62] SUPP.

weavers are the owner members, each individual not possessing more than 4 looms, is in pursuance of the Notification No. 70/60 dated April :{0, 1960, issued under r. 8, under the provisions of the Act, and is based on a valid classification, and docs not infringe the provisions of Arts. 14 and 19(l)(f) & (g) of the Constitution.

·

On those pleadings, and on the arguments at the Bar, the following points ariso for decision in this case, namely, (I) whether tho power of exemp tion conferred upon the Union Government violates Arts. 14 and 19(l){f) & (g) of the Constitution on the ground that it is uncontrolled and unguided, and (2) whether. assuming that the power is not unconstitutional, the exemption granted by tho notifies tions, aforesaid,. is in excess of the power granted by r. 8.

Before discussing the vires of the law, or of the notification issued under the Act, read with r.8 aforesaid, it iA necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. Tho Act con solidatr,s and 11mcnds the law relating to central duties of excise on goods manufactured or produced in certain parts of India, and to salt. Under s. ''excisable goods" means "goods specified in 2( d), the First Sohedulo as being subject to a duty of excise and includes salt". The first schedule con· tains the description of goods anrl rates of duty leviablo under s. 3, which is the char!!ing section and is in these words' :

-

"3(1) Th.,re shall be levied and collected iri such manner as may he prescribed duties of excise on all excisable goods other than salt which are produced or manufactured in India and a duty on salt manufactured in, or impor· ted by land into, any part of India, as, rates, set forth in the }'irst and at Schedule.

the

3 S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

491

{lA) ............................................... . (2) ..............................•.................. ' ( 3) Different tariff values may be fixed for different class or description of the same article."

l96S

Orhnr W eavini Mills (P) ~Id. v. The Union of India Sin!M c. J,

Item No. 19 in the First Schedule is "cotton fabrics", and. means all varieties of fabrics manu . factured either wholly or partly from cotton, with certain specified exemptions, including fabrics manu factured on handloom, and then follow the descrip tion of different kinds of cotton fabrics, with their relative rates of duty. Section 37 authorises the Union Government to make rules to carry into effect the purposes of the Act. By sub-s. (2) of s. 37, it is provided that mies may be framed providing for a number of matters recited therein, including cl. (xvii), which is in these terms: "exempt any goods any part of the duty imposed by this Act.'' In pursuance of this rule making power, the Union Government has made Rules. For the purposes of this case, it is only necessary to quote r. 8, which is as follows:

the whole or

from

"Power to authorise exemption from duty

in special cases:

·

(1) The Central Government may from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification any ex cisable goods. from the whole or any part of the duty leviable on such goods,

(2) Th.e Central Board of Revenue may by special order in each case exempt from the payment of duty, under circumstances of an exceptional nature, any excisable ~oods."

·

19fi2 o,;,.,, w 1aving Milu (P) W v. T. I e Unic.n of India

Sinha C. J.

492 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP.

this Act". Thus

In pursuan<>,e of the powers conferred on the Cr•ntrnl Governmont by sub-r.(l) of r.8, the notifica tious referred t.o above were issued by the Central Gon,rnment.. By virtue of s. 38 of tho Act, all rule;; made and notifications iRsued by the Central Government, as aforesaid, are required to he pub lished in the Official Gazette, and thereupon those rules and notifications "shall have effect a.~ if enact ed in it is manifest that the notifications and the rule impugned in this case h:i.vc been incorporated into th·.1 Act itself, an<l have bt,c.mie part of the taxing statute. It is also note worthy that the petitioners have not challenged the vires of the Act. The petition is directed against r.8 ;rn;J tht' nc>tifications afore8aid, exempting the goo·!~ prorlucBd by the co-operative societies, like the 5th respondent, from payment of the excise duty. That bcin)! so, it is a. little difficult to appreciate tlie first prayer of the petitionerP, a.skin~ for a de<:laration that the levy of excise dutv on the piec•· goods pr•>duceJ by· the petitioners be declar(,~] to be unconstitutional. It is one thing t,o nttnck tho constitution1llity of the prn\'isinn8 of the Act :tut.ho· rising the levy of the excises dut.v on the petitioners; it is quite a different thing to complain of the ex emption grant{ld in respoct of the good~ pro<lt1cecl· A~ the vi res of th·' Act by the 5th re8pundent. itself has not been challenged, we ne1id rnt say anything more on fH>ssible controvNsy which ha8 not ht••·n actually raised in the petition.

that aspect of a

The petition is substantially based upto the contention that r.8 suffers from the v ic" of exces sive delegation of powers to the C'..entral Gov!'rnment to exempt partly or wholly an.v excisable good~. and, secondly, thrit the pow..r even it constitutional has been invalidlv exercisPrl in so far as the notifi· cations aforesaid containing the exemplion operat ing in favour of the 5th rospondent have been Iµ our opinion, there is Qo sllbsta.nce ill made.

1962

o,ient We.avin1 Mill• <nLttJ. v. The Union of India Sinha c, J.

. - 3 S.C.R.

• SUPREME COURT REPORTS

493

either of the two contentions. Rule 8 is as much a part of the statute as s. 37(2) cl. (xvii). It is always open to the State to tax certain classes of goods and not to tax others. The legislature is the best judge to decide as to the incidence of taxation, as also as to the amount of tax to be levied in respect of different classes of goods. The Act recognises and only gives effect to the well established principle that there must be a great deal of flexibility in the It must incidence of taxation of a particular kind. vary from time to time. as also in respect of goods produced by different processes and different agen cies. The same principle has been recognised iu s.23 of the Sea Customs Act (VIII of 187&), which bas been applied to excise duty also, by virtue of s. 12 of the Act. The latter section has authorised the Cen~ral Government to apply the provisions of the Sea Customs Act, to excise duty imposed by the Aot, with such modifications and alterations as it may consider necessary or desirable to adapt them to <'ircumstances. It is a function of the State in order to raise revenue for State purposes, to determine what kind of taxes shall be levid and in therefore, is to raise what manner. revenues for public purposes. The State naturally is interested in raising all the revenue necessary for public purposes, without sacrificing the legitimate interests of persons and groups, who deserve special treatment at the hands of tile State for reasons, which the State may determine, entitling them to be placed in a special class. The Directive Princi ples of the Constitution, contained in Part IV .. lay down the policies and objectives to be achieved, for promoting the welfare of the people. In the context of the present controversy, the following words of Art. 43 are particularly apposite:

Its function,

·

" ............ and in particular,

the State shall endeavour to promote cottage industries

-

1962

OrUnt Wuoing Mills (P) Ltd. v. Thi Union of India

Sin.A• C. J.

494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.

on an individual or co-oporativc basis in rural areas."

It has rightly been pointed out in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respPnucnt8 ; ·4 that the exemption granted by the impugned notifications iA mrant primarily for the protctt.iun l•f petty producers of cot ton fabrics not owning more than four power looms, from unrtasonablc competition by big produc<•rs, lik" the petitioner Company. The State has, therefore, made a valid cl11ssification between goods produced in big establishments and similar goodB produced by small powcrloom weavers in the rnofas8-il, who are usually ignorant, illiterate and poor and suffor to which big ostablishments like the petitioner Cornp1my aro not subject. It has alHo been pointed out that the ex· emption was available to individual wcavern, who employed not more than five looms on their own account. The fact thnt they have banded together in a co.operntive effort to increase their efficiency and to take advantage of State aid should not count again~t them. It must, therefore, he h1,ld that there is no room for the contention that there has been excessive delegation of power to exempt.

from handicaps

It was next contencJt.d that if it were helrl that r. 8 is valid an<! constitutional, the notifications are ba<l in so far as they exempt certain claSBes of persons and not classes of goods from the excise duty. It is argued that the tax is a rluty of exoise on "any item 12 bas reforcnco to a particular goods", and variety of goods, rnimely, fabrics'; the 'cotton exemption if any could have been granted iR respect of any particular specified variety of 'cotton fabrics' and not with reference to the per8ons producing the same variety of those fabrics. There is a pparcntly this argument. The tax is on the a production of any goods, but it is payable by per· sons producing such goods. The exemption also ia

fallacy

in

,,.,,

""'

1961

Orient Wtaft"I Mills (P) Ltd. •• Tiit Union of Inrlia

SinhaC. J.

'• +

.,, : 3 S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

495

with reference to such goods as come within the description of excisable goods. The respondent No. 5 has been exempted from payment of excise duty in respect of goods produced by the weavers. It has not been exempted from tile payment of a personal tax, like Income Tax. The exemption must, therefore, have reference to the same kind of tax which would otherwise have been leviable but for the exemption. From the notifications set out above, it is manifest that the Government has exempted cotton fabrics produced on power-looms owned by a co.operative society, and in the present instance owned by the members of the Co-operative Society. It has not been contended before us that the conditions laid down for granting the exemption have not been fulfilled by the members of the Co operative Society, the respondent No. 5. Hence, the exemption granted is within the terms of the notifi cations aforesaid, which have effect as if enacted as a part of the Statute. The vires of the Statute, as already indicated, has not been questioned.

It must, therefore, be held that there is no merit in this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed with costs to the answering respondents.

Pdiflion dismissed.