CALCUTTA IMPROVEMENT TRUSTEES v. C. S. MALLICK 141 (Bhagwati, J.) We will first examine the validity of rules 11 to 21. These rules fonn P"dft of the Rules made by the State Government claiming to act in exercise of the power conferred under clause (3a) of section 137. This clause was added in section 13 7 by the Amending Act of 1931 at the same time when section 78A to section 78G were enacted and it empowered the State Government to make rules inter alia for determining the qualifications and disqualifications of, the conditions and mode of election, selection or appointment of, an arbitrator and for regulating the proceedings of arbitrators under section 78C. This power was conferred on the State Government in addition to that given to it under section 86. Now, Rule 1 contains definitions, while 2 to 11 provide for the qualifications and disqualifications of and the conditions and mode of election, selection and appointment, of arbitrators. It is indeed difficult to see how Rule 11 could be struck down by the High Court as invalid. It provides the machinary for appointment of arbitrators in a case where the objectors fail to elect an arbitrator. That would fall fairly and squarely within the tern1s of clause (3a) of section 137. Rules 12 to 21 lay down the procedure regulating the proceedings of arbitrators and they are clearly covered by the latter part of clause (3a) of section 137, which speaks of Rules "far regulating the proceedings of arbitrators under section 78C". With the great respect to the learned judges of the High Court, we think impossible to contend that Rules 11 to 21 are outside the rule making power of the State Government under clause (3a) of section 137. The High Court seems to have relied on a passaQe from the Calcutta Improvement Trust Manual published under the authority of the State Government which states that "the rules were framed by the Government under section 137 of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 regarding the nominations of arbitrators for settlement of bettennent fee in the Local Self Government Department Notification--dated 5th May, 1934. That indicates that the rules for regulating the proceeding of an arbitrator under section 78C are not within the purview of these rules, Yet Rules 11 to 23 in the Rules framed under section 137 cover a field which is much beyond the subject of 'lomination of arbitrators for settlement of bettennent fee" and on the basis of this statement, held that "Rules 11 to 21 are outside the region of the purpose for which the State Government has exercised its power under section 137". This is indeed strange logic for striking down Rules 11 to 21 as ultra vires clause (3a) of section 137. The vl!lidity of these rules has to be judged by reference to the question as to whether they fall within, the scope of the! rule mak-, ing power conferred under clause (3a) of section 137 and not on the basis of some opinion expressed by the author of the Calcutta lmpwvement Trust Manual. When it is clear beyond doubt that clause (3a) of section 137 emnowers the State Government to make rules for rel!lllatiM the proceedinos of arhitrat0,,-,; under section 78C and Rules 11 to 21 are plainlv rules falling within this category. we fail to see bow thv cn ""~i;-a,Tu t.,,,.. C'"'"rlPm.,,""ci as outside the rnle m"king power conferred on the State Government. The State Government has deliheratelv and au0w'rlu exerci<e<l its rule making power under clause (3a) of section 137 and m"<le Rules. 11 to 21 fo; regulating the proceedings of arbitrators. The High Court has
