It is contended that a limitation on the powers of the Legislative Assembly in Hyderabad State was created by the Ain, which was, in essence the eupreme law, and any bill introduced in contravention of the Ain was void ab initio. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, a law which was void at its inception remained so, even if subsequently assented to by the Nizam. If one were to think in terms of a legislature of limited jurisdiction, this might be true. Laws are really cqmmands embodying rules of conduct emanating from one whose will is sovereign, or, in other words, supreme. Legislative Sovereignty must be found to uphold the laws. It depends upon the Constitution of a particular State, where it resides. It may not reside in a Ruler b.ut in a legislature,· where the Ruler has surrendered or been made to surrender his powers, as, for example, the. King in Parliament in England, or it may reside in an absolute and sovereign Ruler,. who has not parted with it, the legislature being merely his amanuensis. In the latter case, the will of the Ruler expressed as a rule of conduct is the law, whether made by him directly or through his legislature. The A.in itself derived its authority from the Nizam only, and the Nizam, as the supreme legislator, could frame a law in derogation of the A.in, which was his own cre.ation. The Ain w11,~ (I) A. I. R. 1956 ~. C. llQ,
