Case: State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another Vs. Lal Bhargavendra Singh

1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed on August 10, 1956 by Shri Lal Saheb Bhargavendra Singh, now deceased and represented by his legal representatives, against the Union of India, the State of Vidhya Pradesh, now merged in the State of Madhya Pradesh, and the Collector of Satna, for a declaration that he was entitled to receive an allowance of Rs. 650 per month from the Union of India. There was another claim but that depended on the declaratory relief claimed and need not, therefore, be referred to further. Shri Lal Saheb was the brother of the Ruler of the former Indian State of Nagod and he contended that the Ruler had by a law passed on March 7, 1948 provided for a allowance for him at the rate of Rs. 650 per month and that that law was binding on the defendants who had by an executive order illegally altered the amount of the maintenance. It was on this basis that the claim was made. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but was decreed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on appeal by the plaintiff. Hence this appeal.2. Certain events that took place after March 7, 1948 when the allowance was fixed have now to be stated. On March 18, 1948, the Ruler of Nagod along with the Rulers of various neighbouring ruling States formed a new State called the Unit of State of Vidhya Pradesh into while the component States were merged thereby losing their sovereign status. Thereafter the United State merged in India by an agreement and pursuant thereto the Government of India took its administration on January 1, 1950. Its territories then became the Indian province of Vidhya Pradesh. The United State ceased to exist. On the promulgation of the Constitution on January 26, 1950 the Province of Vidhya Pradesh became a Part C State of Independent India and later from November 1, 1956 it was merged with the State of Madhya Pradesh.3. By the agreement constituting the United State all laws in force in the constituent States were continued in force and likewise the laws of the United State were by a statutory order continued in force when it merged in India. Article 372 of the Constitution continued in force all laws which were in force in the territories of India immediately before the commencement of the Constitution. Each succeeding State could, of course, alter the laws which were so continued in force in spite of the change of sovereignty, by a law duly made by it. Neither the United State nor the Indian province of States which successively; administered the territories of the State of Nagod had made any law concerning any allowance to be paid to Shri Lal Saheb The Rajpramukh (the head) of the United State and the President of India had passed orders from time to time fixing his allowance at amounts lower than that at which it had been fixed by the Ruler of Nagod on March 7, 1948. These were, however, executive orders and not laws. They could not reduce the amount of allowance to Shri Lal Saheb fixed by the Ruler of Nagod on March 7, 1948, if he had done so by a law. All this is not in controversy.

Court's reasoning:
The true legal position is that whenever a dispute arises as to whether an order passed by an absolute monarch represents a legislative act ..... all relevant factors must be considered before the question is answered; the nature of the order the scope and effect of its provisions, its general setting and context, the method adopted by the Ruler in promulgating legislative as distinguished from executive orders, these and other allied matter; will have to be examined before the character of the order is judiciallyis, therefore, not correct to say, as the High Court did, that this Court has held that every order of the Ruler is a law made by him. The question whether it is so or not, has to be determined in each case independently.We think it quite impossible that this order was a law. First, it is a direction to the Chief Minister. It is an order by which the Ruler required the Chief Minister to do certain things. It has not been shown to us that direction to an officer to be carried out by him, has ever been held to be a law or can be such. It cannot be so according to nations to modern jurisprudence. Then we find that a copy of the order was sent under the direction of the Revenue Minister to Shri Lal Saheb and various parts of it, to the different departments of the Nagod Administration respectively concerned with them, obviously with the object that they might be carried out. This would indicate that even the Administration was not treating it as law for it would be difficult to imagine different parts of a law being communicated to different branches of the Administration. Further, it appears that the Revenue Minister directed the Accounts Officer to make a report regarding the provision to be made for the sum of Rs. 5,000 mentioned in the order. This is not how a law is carried out.We should before concluding state that the Ruler of Nagod who made the order of March 7, 1948 himself gave evidence stating that he had passed the order "under his legislative powers". This statement obviously does not conclude the matter. It was not relied upon in any of the Courts below. The internal evidence to which we have earlier referred shows that the order was not a legislative act.For all these reasons we have come to the conclusion that the order of the Ruler of Nagod of March 7, 1948 was not a law. It was not continued in force after the State of Nagod lost its sovereignty in the circumstances earlier mentioned. The order was an executive act of the ruler providing for certain allowance to Shri Lal Saheb. It was, therefore, competent to the President acting in his executive capacity to reduce it to a sum of Rs. 530 per month as he did by his order of September 24, 1951 which was challenged in the suit.