THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT OF A.P., HYDERABAD & ANOTHER versus V. VENKATA REDDY & ORS.

Citation: [1973] 2 S.C.R. 562 · Decided: 03-10-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

5 (j .::! 
THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, 
A 
GOVERNMENT OF A P., HYDERABAD & ANOTHER 
v. 
V. VENKATA REDDY & ORS. 
October 3, 1972 
[S. l\l. SIKRI, C.J., A. N. RAY, I. D. DUA, D. G. PALEKAR AND 
M. H. BEG, JJ.l 
Hyderabad Ci\·if Service Regulations pro1nulgated by Ni::.anz's Finnan 
dated 25th 
Ramzan 
1337H-Mulki Ru/es-Validity of-Ruie l(b) 
and r. 3 whether 'latt•s in force' at con1n1ence111ent of Constitution-
Wherlier continued in force by Arr 35(b) of the Constitution-Whether 
continlle in force under Re-organisation of States Act 1956--Whether 
repealed by s. 2 of Public Employn1ent (Requiren1e11t as to Reside11ce) 
Act 1957. 
The Mulki Rules promulgated by the Nizam of Hyderabad before 
the merger of thae State with Indlia laid down certain qualifications 
as to residence in the State for the purpose of appoinment to the State 
services. 
After the States Reorganisation Act 1956 the Telangana area 
of Hyderabad State and the State of Andhra were combinecl to form th< 
new State of Andhra Pradesh. 
The respondents who were officers in 
the Department of Industries in Andhrn Pradesh and were adversely 
affected by the M ulki Rules filecl writ petitions in the 
High 
Court 
cha.Wenging the validity of the said Rules. 
The High Court, held these 
to be invalid. In appeal to this Court by certificate the questions whiah 
arise for decision were : (I) Were r. l(b) read with r. 3 of the Mulki 
Rules and Art. 39 of the Constitution, laws in force· immediately before 
the commencement of the Constitution in the territory of India ? (ii) 
Were they continued 
it> 
force 
by, Art. 
35(b) 
of 
the 
Consti-
tution? (iii) Did they continue in force after the Constitution of the 
State of Andhra Pradesh under the Reorganisation of States Act, 1956? 
(iv) Did they continue or tbey stand repealed by s. 2 of the Public 
Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act 1957, notwithstanding 
that s. 3 of the said Aclt was declared void in so far as it dealt with 
Telengana? 
Allowin.g the appeal, 
HELD : i) The words "laws in force in the territory of Incfa" in 
Art. 35(b) also occur in Art. 372 which continue in force existing 
Ia\\o·s which existed not only in the Provinces of British India but in all 
Indian States. It would be remarkable if it were otherwioo. In the con-
text of Art. 372 what has to be seen is not whether the State of Hyderabad 
was part of the territory of India before the commencement of the Con-
stitution but whether its territory is inch1ded in India after its comn1ence-
ment. 
The same test applies to the old Pro";nces or part of Provinces 
of British India. [569H] 
Janardan Reddy v. The State .. r1950] S.C.R. 940, distinguished. 
(ii) This Court interpreted Art. 16(3) in Narasimha Rao's case to 
mean that it speaks of a whole State as the venue for residential qualifi-
cations. 
It cannot be said that the impugned Mulki Rules rould not 
be provided for by Parliament under Art. 16(3). They are with respect 
to the matter referred to in Art 16(3). Article 16(3) confers le~islative 
power on Parliament with respect to a matter mentioned thcre~n. 
It 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
DIRECTOR INDUSTRIES & COM. v. V. V. REDDY (Sikri, C.J.) 563 
confers no less power than Arts. 245-246 do, read with List I and List 
III. 
The in1pugned rules prescribed requirements as to residence within 
the \vhole of 1-:lyde·rabad State and therefore are saved and continued 
in force by Art. 35(b). 
Merely because eertain other Mulki Rules be-
came vpid on the commencement of the Constitution the impugned rules 
could not be said to have also become void because Art. 35 (b) expressly 
saves laws like the impugned rules. Effect must be given to the intention 
clearly expressed in Art. 35(b). [570E] 
Narasimha Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 
J 1970] J S.C.R. 
115, applied. 
(iii) The impugned rules continued in force even after the constitullon 
of the State of. Andhra Pradesh under the Re-0rganisation of the States 
Act, 1956. 
On the terms of Art 35(b) the only proper question to be asked is: 
"Has ParJiament in exercise of its powers under Art. 35(b), read with 
Art. 16(3). altered or repealed or amended the impugned rules r· That 
this is the proper question follow. from the words "notwithstanding 
anything in the Constitution". 
Tfiis expression equally applies to Art. 
35(a) and Art. 35(b). In Art. 35(b) the effect of these words is not 
onJv to continue the impugned rules but to continue them unt
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.