Legislature had in mind, then, it is futile to suggest that the Legislature has left unaffected by repeal only the validity of the exemption order, but not its conditions. The argument that the conditions on which the exemption order is based or passed are no longer valid, but it is only the exemption order whose validity is saved, is required to be stated only for being rejected. While canvassing such an argument the counsel lost sight of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Repeal Act. If as a condition for grant of exemption any payment has to be made to the State Government, then, the repeal of the Principal Act was not to affect such payment or condition under which the same is made. The insertion of the words “as a condition for granting exemption” in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 3 would demonstrate the legislative intent. If the payment made to the State Government as a condition for granting exemption and which may be incorporated in the exemption order is saved, then, there is no warrant to exclude from the provision in question the validity of other conditions in the exemption order. The entire order of exemption together with the conditions subject to which it has been granted is thus saved. That is because the Legislature was aware that the Principal Act was a social legislation. That its misuse and abuse by some sectors resulting in laudable social objective being not achieved that its repeal was necessitated. However, despite the repeal the validity of the exemption order or any action taken thereunder and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any order of the Court has been expressly saved. That could never have been inserted and merely to save the validity of the exemption order on paper. The validity of the order is saved so as not to affect the legal consequences of such valid order. To save them and the order as a whole together with the conditions incorporated therein that section 3(1)(b) and (c) has been inserted in the Repeal Act. By that the State's powers incidental and ancillary to the power to exempt can thus, be exercised and despite the repeal. The exemption order, validity of which has been saved, can, therefore, be enforced, so also, its terms and conditions. These terms and conditions may have been incorporated simply to reaffirm that the power to exempt which is conferred in the highest executive functionary in the State, namely, Government is presumed to be exercised for public good and in public interest. The exercise of such powers is, therefore, presumed to be bona fide and for achieving the object and purpose for which it is conferred. It is with these presumptions and which were always present to the Legislature that the validity of exemption order has been saved. Having said that and also saving the payment or monetary aspect related to the exemption, it was not necessary for the Parliament to then spell out separately all the legal consequences flowing from such valid order. Even otherwise, that there is no intention contrary to what is spelled out by section 6 of the General Clauses Act is, therefore, apparent. There is no substance in the argument of the Petitioners that only the exemption order is saved, but not its terms and conditions and further by not referring to sub-section (2) of section 20 the State's power to withdraw
