Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prabhakar Sadasheo Nandanwar v. State of Maharashtra and ors reported at 2002 (4) Bom.C.R. 710 is pressed into service to show how Entry 44 then appearing in rule 44 has been construed as illustrative in nature. To further substantiate this contention, our attention has also been invited to the fact that inspite of material amendment in scheme of rule 18, entry 18 and entry 35 which operate in the same field have continued in the Appellate Side Rules. It is urged that when basic design of framers is to permit only limited challenge before learned single Judge, by interpretative process, that design needs to be protected and, therefore, it is essential to hold the language employed in last proviso to rule 18 also as illustrative. Reliance is also placed upon Chapter 11 in Maxwell Law of Interpretation (12th Edn). It is urged that in such situation, this Court is duty-bound to follow the law as explained by the Division Bench of this Court in Prabhakar Sadasheo Nandanwar's case (supra). It is also pointed out that if this Court is inclined to take any other view, Reference then needs to be made to a larger Bench. Attention is also invited to Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Chandrakant and ors v. State of Maharashtra and ors reported at 1976 BCI (O) 85 to urge that there the question was whether Circular, Order or Resolution or part thereof laying down rules or principles of general application requiring observance in recruitment or in fixation of seniority for Government servants and duly authenticated by signature under the endorsement "By order and in the name of Governor of Maharashtra" and intending to be applicable straightway are or amount to Rules framed in exercise of powers conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India though the same do not expressly state that they are made or issued in exercise of the powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 and are not published in the Government Gazette. Attention is invited to paragraph 32 of the said Full Bench judgment where the question has been answered holding that such circulars, orders or resolutions can amount to rules framed in exercise of powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Learned Senior Advocate, therefore, states that challenge in the present matter, therefore, is rightly filed before the Division Bench.