STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER versus LAL BHARGA VENDRA SINGH

Citation: [1966] 2 S.C.R. 56 · Decided: 07-10-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SARKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

56 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER 
A 
v. 
LAL BHARGA VENDRA SINGH 
October 7, 1965 
[A. K. SARKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, 
B 
J. R. MUDHOLKAR AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.J 
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 372-0rder of former Indian Ruler 
granting allowance to member of family out of bounty-If "law" .. 
On 7th March 1948, the Ruler of a former Indian State, out of his 
bounty and in discharge of bis moral obligation, passed an order provid-
C 
ing for an allowance to his brother-respondent herein. 
He directed the 
Chief Minister of the State to do certain things, and the various parts 
of the order were sent to the different departments of the State Adminis-
tration for carrying them out. 
The order also gran\ed to the respon-
· ! 
dent a house, conveyance etc. On 18th March 1948, the State along 
with other States formed the United State of Vindhya Pradesh, the compo-
nent States lo9ing their soveriegn status. Later, the United State merged 
in India, and on the promulgation of the Constitution, the State became 
D 
a Part of the Indian Union. On 24th Septeml>or, 1951, the President of 
India, in his executive capacity reduced the amount of allowance. 
The 
respondent thereupon filed a suit for a declaration, against the State and 
Central Governments, that the allowance could not be reduced lJ.o.cause 
it was granted to him by a law passed by the former Ruler, which law 
was continued in force by the convenant constituting the United State, by 
certain statutory orders made from time to time and lastly by Art. 372 
of the Constitution. 
The trial court dismissed the suit, but the High 
E 
Court, on appeal, decreed it. 
In the appeal to this Court by the State and Central Governments, the 
question was whether the order of the form·~r Ruler was a law. 
HELD : It wao not a law and was not continued in force a~ter the 
State lost its sovereignty. 
The order was an executive act of the Ruler 
and it was competent to the President, in his executive capacity., to 
F 
reduce the amount. [ 66 HJ 
The nature o.f the order shows it cannot be a law according to notions 
of modern jurisprudence. 
It was a mere directive or grant, and even if 
the money was paid out of the State Exchequer, thait fact would not 
tum the order into a law. [60 C; Fl 
Narsing Pratap Deo v. State of Orissa, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1793, referred 
~ 
G 
Promod Chandra Dev v. State of Orissa, [1962] Supp. I S.C.R. 405, 
explained. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 738 of 
1963. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree, dated 
H 
December 16, 1960 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 
First Appeal No. 105 of 1957. 
• 
' 
' 
• 
STATE v. BHARGAVENDRA (Sarkar, J.) 
A 
B. Sen, M. N. Shroff and I. N. Shroff, for the appellants. 
G. S. Pathak and C. P. Lal, for respondents l(a)-l(c). 
K. L. Hathi and R. N. Sachthey, for respondents No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
Sarkar, J. 
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 re:presentatives, against the Union of 
India, the State of Vindhya 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 
C 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 an· 
D 
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. 
E 
F 
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 United State of Vindhya 
Pradesh into which 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 over its ad

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.