Om Prakash, C.J. 1. This judgment will dispose of the appeal and the O.P., as both raise the same controversy.
2. The appeal, preferred against the impugned judgment dated 18th March, 1993, raises a short but ticklish question for consideration whether Sub-rule (9) of Rule 21 of the Land Assignment Rules, 1964 (for short, 'the Rules') is beyond the rule making power as contained in Section 7(1) of the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960 (for brevity sake, 'the Act'). Clause (n) of Sub-section (1) of Section 7 reads as under :
"7. Power to make rules-- (1) the Govern ment may make rules--
.....
(n) providing for revision by the Board of Revenue of any order passed by the prescribed authority, and prescribing the time within which such revisional power may be exercised."
3. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant before us is that Section 7(1)(n) provides for revision only by the Board of Revenue and there is no provision under Section 7(1) to provide for revision by the Government. It is, therefore, submitted that in view of the specific provision of revision under Section 7(1)(n), Sub-rule (9) of Rule 21 of the Rules providing revision by Government is beyond the rule making-power and hence is void. Sub-rule (9) of Rule 21 is reproduced below :
"(9) The Government may at any time revise, cancel, or alter on their own motion or otherwise any decision made or order passed by the Tahsildar, an officer authorised by the Government under Rule 23-A, Revenue Divisional Officer, District Collector or the Board of Revenue under these rules."
4. The argument by learned counsel for the appellant, in brief, is that as Section 7(1)(n) specifically provides for revision by the Board of Revenue, Sub-rule (9) of Rule 21 has been enacted beyond the scope of the rule making power.
5. On the other hand, the submission of the learned Government Pleader before us is that power to make assignment ultimately vests in the Government and, therefore, the Government has to oversee and regulate the assignment. It is, therefore, submitted that the power of revision by the State Government can be traced to Section 7(1), Clause (q). The learned single Judge held as under :
"4. The main purpose of the Land Assignment Act and Rules are for prescribing procedure to be followed by the Government in assigning or granting lease in respect of Government lands. The main purpose of the Act itself is for laying down the procedure for assignment. Being Government land the Government is the ultimate authority to decide the matter. It is in that situation that the rule was amended in 1967 by giving power of revision to the Government, either suo motu or otherwise. On a reading of Section 71 have no doubt tn my mind that the provisions contained in Rule 21 (9) will come within the power conferred on the Government under Section 7(q) of the Act."
6. Clause (q) of Section 7(1) of the Act runs as follows :
"(1) The Government may make rules--
.....
(q) generally for carrying out the purposes of this Act."
7. The submission of the learned Government Pleader before us is that the rules are framed for carrying out the purposes of the Act and under Clause (q), power was given to the rule making authority in general to make any rule for carrying out the purpose(s) of the Act and it is in exercise of that power, Sub-rule (9) of Rule 21 was inserted by Government dated 30-12-1967.
8. Clauses (a) to (q) in Section 7(1) are not illustrative or enumerative. They would have been so, if Section 7(1) had illustrated in Clauses (a) to (q) without prejudice to the generality of the rule making power. Under Clauses (a) to (q), the Legislature has specified the purposes for which rules can be framed. Under Clause (n) of Section 7(1), the Legislature clearly laid down that the rules can provide for revision by the Board of Revenue. The only question is whether Clause (q) shows the legislative intent otherwise and whether that clause confers powers on the rule making authority to provide another revision before the Government in addition to the power of revision by the Board of Revenue under Clause (n). When Clause (n) of Section 7(1) clearly provides the remedy of revision before the Board of Revenue, it is difficult to hold that Clause (q) can be read in such a manner as to enable the rule making authority to confer the same power again on the Government. 'Specific' excludes general -- is the well accepted principle. The submission of the learned Government pleader is that Clause (q) confers general power to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and if purposive interpretation is taken of Clause (q), then it could be read only so as to enable the rule making authority to confer power of revision on the State Government, otherwise purpose of the Act will be defeated. We do not see any force in this submission. Rules are made only to carry out the purposes of the Act. If the submission is accepted then any rule can be made under Clause (q) irrespective of the specific powers in the preceding clauses. Such construction on Clause (q) cannot be accepted.
9. In taking this view, we are fortified by the decision of this Court in Wynad Coffee Growers Association v. State of Kerala (1988) 2 Ker LT 650. In this authority, the question for consideration was whether Rule'2-B of the Kerala Plantation Labour Rules, 1959 was in excess of the rule making power, conferred by Section 3-D of the Plantation Labour Act, 1951. Section 3-D(1) and (2) of the said Act were as under :
"(1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the purpose of this Chapter.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely :--
....."
Rule 2-B(1) was framed as under :
"2-B. Renewal of Certificate of Registration.-- (1) Every employer shall make an application in Form No. 17 in duplicate for renewal of the Certificate of Registration granted under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 2-A to the Registering Officer in person or by registered post on or before the 31 st October of every year."
10. Section 3-D refers to only registration, but Rule 2-B(1) enjoined upon seeking renewal of the Certificate of Registration. The question was whether Rule 2-B(1) was in excess of the rule making power, as contained in Section 3-D. A Division Bench of this Court held as under :
"14.....The Act, therefore, contemplates registration only once; the Act does not contemplate renewal of registration from time to time. The act does not state that the registration certificate is valid only for a particular period. The fixation of the period of sixty days for filing the application after 26-1-1982 or after the new plantation comes into existence is also an indication that the plantation has to be registered only once. The Act itself provides for incorporating the changes in the original registration and for cancellation of the registration and does not expressly provide for any renewal.
15.....The absence of any period of validity for the registration, and the non-existence of any provision for renewal and scheme of the Act also indicate that the Act, has not by any necessary implication insisted on any renewal of registration....
In the result. Rules 2-B and 2-C in Chapter IV of the Kerata Plantation Labour Rules arc struck down as unconstitutional and unenforceable and beyond the powers conferred under the Plantations Labour Act, 1951."
11. Learned counsel for the appellant also drew our attention to the legislative history. The Government Land Assignment Regulations, 1097 were introduced in the beginning. At that point of time the Board of Revenue was not constituted and, therefore, Regulation 7 conferred on the Government power of revision.
12. The Regulations of 1097 were followed by the Trawancore Cochin Board of Revenue Act (Act 9 of 1950). Section 6 of the said Act enabled the Board of Revenue toexercise revisional powers, exerrisable by the Government under the enactments mentioned in the First Schedule thereof. The Government Land Assignment Act 3 of 1097 is one of the enactments in the First Schedule. Thus, the revisional power of the Government under the said regulation was passed on to the Board of Revenue. The Travancore Cochin Board of Revenue Act, 1950 contained a provision in Section 9 thereby authorising the Government to revise any order of the Board of Revenue.
13. The Travancore Cochin Land Assignment Act (Act 33 of 1950) was enacted later. Under Section 7(1) of the said Act, the Board of Revenue was conferred with the power of revision in place of the Government and no further revision was provided to the Government.
14. Camp then the Kerala Board of Revenue Act, 1957. It repealed the Travancore Cochin Board of Revenue Act. A provision analogous to Section 9 of the Travancore Cochin Board of Revenue Act was specifically omitted in the Board of Revenue Act. 1957 and thus no revisional power was conferred on the Government against the order of the Board of Revenue.
15. From the Legislative history, it is amply clear that the power of revision was conferred on the Government whenever the Legislature intended so and that the power of revision was not vested at ail times in the Government in the past,
16. We are, therefore, of the view that Clause (q) of Section 7(1) cannot be so interpreted as to empower the rule making authority to confer power of revision on the Government. Since power of revision is specified under Clause (n), it must be held that Sub-rule (9) of Rule 21, purportedly framed in exercise of the power under Clause (q) of Section 7(1) is void and unenforceable.
In the result, both the appeal and the O.P. succeed and are allowed. The impugned judgment dated 18th March, 1993 is set aside and Sub-rule (9) of Rule 21 of the Land Assignment Rules, 1964 is struck down as void and unenforceable being beyond the rule making power, as contained under Section 7(1) of the Land Assignment Act.