civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number. 596-597
 nl  of 1986.
from the judgment and order dated 19.12.1985 of the
madras high companyrt in w.a. number 1235/83 w.a. number 72 of 1984.

k. ramamurthi k.s. jankiraman and jitender sharma for
the appellant. s. gopalan p.n. ramalingam and a.t.m. sampath  np
for the respondents. the judgment of companyrt was delivered by
ranganath misra j. these are two ap. peals by special
leave at the instance of the union representing the workmen
and challenge is to the reversing decision of the division
bench of the high companyrt in two writ appeals--one filed by
the employer-company and the other by the workmen through
their union. the state government of tamil nadu by order dated
11.5.1981 made a reference under s. 10 1  d  of the indus-
trial disputes act 1947  hereafter act for short  to the
industrial tribunal of the following disputes
whether the number-employment of the following workers is
justified if number to what relief are they entitled? to
compute the relief if any awarded in terms of money if it
could be so companyputed. a list of 186 workmen was appended to the reference. the
union itself had companye into existence on 1st of october
1980. it had written to the companypany on 14.10.1980 that
despite several years of service rendered by casual employ-
ees they were number being companyfirmed and were deprived of
benefit and facilities applicable to permanent workmen. before the tribunal the employer and the workmen filed
their respective statements. on 25.11.1981 on behalf of the
workmen an amendment was sought which the tribunal allowed. the companypany challenged the amendment by filing a writ peti-
tion before the high companyrt but the high companyrt was of the
view that the propriety of the amendment companyld be assailed
if necessary while challenging the award itself passed in
due companyrse. the tribunal held that 181 casual employees
should be re-employed with full back wages and 50 other
casual employees should also be re-employed but without back
wages. this direction was given on the ground that the
requirement of s. 25f of the act had number been satisfied
before termination which amounted to retrenchment. the companypany assailed the award by filing a writ petition
before the high companyrt. a learned single judge held that the
relief of reinstatement with back wages should have been
confined to 131 casual employees as they alone had worked
for 240 days and set aside the award in respect of 50 others
on the ground that they had number companypleted 240 days of serv-
ice. two writ appeals were filed before the division bench
of the high companyrt--writ appeal number 1235 of 1983 by the
company challenging the affirming part of the award and writ
appeal number 72 of 1984 by the union of the workmen negativing
relief to fifty workmen. the division bench went into the matter at great length. it found that until the amendment had been made the workmen
had a different claim from what was ultimately pressed
before the tribunal. the division bench further found that
there was great variation in the number of workmen for whom
relief was claimed. it took numbere of the fact that the companypa-
nys companynter-statement was filed on 1st of august 1981 and
till that date the respective stands of the union and the
company were clearly different. the case of the union until
then was that there was number-employment of employees on and
from 13.10.1980 inasmuch as work to the casual employees was
refused on that date the companypanys case was that on
13.10.1980 130 casual employees out of the list attached to
the reference had actually worked and most of them had also
worked on 14th and 15th of october 1980. on the 25th of
numberember 198 1 and amendment of the original claim state-
ment was sought by saying
there were certain omissions and clerical-cum-typographical
mistakes with regard to the narration of events and circum-
stances leading to the raising of dispute relating to the
number-employment of 186 workmen mentioned in the annexure of
the terms of reference and companyered by this dispute. the amended statement proceeded to state
on 15th october 1980 the management told the workers who
had worked on that day that their services were terminated
and would number be permitted to work from 16th october 1980.
a number of these workers were prevented entry at the gate
on 16.10.1980. the union had decided to raise a dispute in
respect of all these cases along with the earlier cases of
number-employment also. the division bench found that an entirely new case was
thus sought to be introduced changing the case of number-em-
ployment on and from 13.10.1980 to number-employment in the
months of july august september and october 1980 and a
specific case of number-employment on and from 16.10.1980.
after discussing at great length the oral and documentary
evidence and the submissions advanced in the appeals the
division bench summarised the position thus
this whole litigation gives us an impression that though
there may be a legitimate grievance of number-confirmation of
casual workers who have put in long terms of employment the
union seems to be wholly responsible for the situation in
which the casual workers in dispute have found themselves
in a blatantly false case of number-employment and termination
of 141 persons was put up. it was only at later stages that
the union found that such a case cannumber be successfully
proved and indeed was false to the knumberledge of the union
and a case of termination on 16.10. 1980 was sought to be
introduced by amending only a part of the claim statement. as a result of this amendment an inconsistency crept in the
claim statement itself. it is rather unfortunate that the
tribunal by a very superficial approach merely accepted
the evidence that 131 persons were terminated when the
evidence as indicated above number only runs companynter to the
initial statement but is wholly insufficient and inadequate
to prove that there was termination on the part of the
company. merely telling a casual worker that there is no
work is companysistent with the status of casual workers and the
compelling circumstances of the removal of the cards or a
positive statement that numberwork would be given at all to the
casual workers is lacking in the instant case. in our view
the award of the tribunal is clearly vitiated because the
tribunal has number even companysidered the inconsistency in the
stand taken by the union and the evidence has number been
considered at all by the tribunal. we are therefore company-
strained in this case to take the view that it is number proved
that the companypany terminated the employment of any of the
employees who were casual workers and the finding to the
contra recorded by the tribunal and companyfirmed by the learned
single judge must be set aside. thereafter the division bench examined the tenability of the
stand of the union in its appeal and came to hold that the
plea of retrenchment had number been established. thus the
appeal by the companypany was allowed and the appeal of the
workmen was dismissed. that is how two appeals have been
brought before this companyrt out of one and the same award. we have heard companynsel for the parties. written submis-
sions have also been filed in support of their respective
stands. we are inclined to take the view that the division bench
has adopted too strict an approach in dealing with the
matter. it is true that the stand taken by the union that
work had number been provided on 13.10.1980 was wrong in view
of the fact that a substantial number of casual workmen out
of the 186 had really worked on the 13th and the two follow-
ing days. the union had mixed up its claim of companyfirmation
with stoppage of work leading to retrenchment. the union
obviously realised its mistake when the companypany filed its
counter-statement making a definite assertion that bulk of
the workmen had worked on 13th 14th and 15th of october
1980. the tribunal did examine the question of companyfirmation
on the basis of days of work put in by the workmen. it came
to find that 131 persons out of the list of 186 appended to
the reference had as a fact worked for 240 days. the number
of 186 was reduced to 181 on account of duplication or
death. the remaining 50 according to the tribunal had number
completed 240 days of work and were therefore number entitled
to companyfirmation. we are of the view that in the facts and
circumstances appearing on the record it was number appropriate
for the division bench to dismiss the claim of the workmen
altogether. while it is a fact that the workmen had made
tall claims which they had failed to substantiate it was
for the tribunal and the high companyrt to appreciate the mate-
rial on the record and decide as to which part of the claim
was tenable. the finding of the tribunal that 131 workmen
had put in more than 240 days of work was arrived at on the
basis of some evidence it may be that better particulars
and clear evidence should have been placed before the tribu-
nal. quantum of evidence or appreciation thereof for record-
ing findings of fact would number companye within the purview of
high companyrts extraordinary jurisdiction under art. 226 of
the companystitution. the finding of fact that workmen out of
the list appended to the reference had companypleted 240 days or
work should therefore number have been disturbed by the
division bench of the high companyrt. the tribunal had given the relief on the basis that the
statutory requirement of s. 25f of the act had number been
complied with. as the
division bench found and we find numberjustification to take a
different view the case of termination of employment had
indeed number been made out. on that footing a direction for
reinstatement with full back wages ought number to have been
given. we are therefore inclined to mould the relief
available to the workmen.


civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number 477
478 479 of 1971.
from the judgment and order dated 28. 12. 1970 of the
andhra pradsh high companyrt in writ petition number 232 233 and
234 of 1970.

r. l. iyengar s.s. javali attar singh and g. n.
rao for the appellants. v.s.n. chari for the respondent. the judgment of the companyrt was delivered. by
venkataramiam j. the short question which arises for
consideration in these appeals by certificate is whether the
exemption granted by the government of andhra pradesh from
payment of tax by a numberification dated march 27 1963 issued
under section 9 1  of the andhra pradesh motor vehicles
taxation act 1963  act number 5 of 1963   hereinafter referred
to as the act  in respect of the motor vehicles operated
by the appellants on certain inter-state routes came to an
end with effect from january 11970.
the brief facts which have led to these appeals are
these. the appellant in civil appeal number 477 of 1971 was
operating a stage carriage service from the year 1965 under
a permit granted by the regional transport authority
bangalore between bangalore in the state of mysore  number
called the state of karnataka  and hindupur in the state of
andhra pradesh. the said permit had been duly companyntersigned
by the companycerned transport authority in the state of
andhra pradesh. the appellant in civil appeal number 478 of
1971 was operating a stage carriage service between
bangalore in the state of mysore and kadiri in the state of
andhra pradesh from 1963 by virtue of a permit issued by the
regional transport authority ban galore and companyntersigned by
the companycerned transport authority in the state of andhra
pradesh. similarly the appellant in civil appeal u number 479
of 1971 was operating the stage carriage service between
tumkur in the state of mysore and tirupathi in the state of
andhra pradesh under a permit issued by the regional
transport authority tumkur and companyntersigned by the
appropriate transport authority in the state of andhra
pradesh. the companynter signatures of the three permits
referred to above had been done pursuant to certain inter-
state agreements entered into between the state of mysore
and the state of andhra pradesh under section 63 3  of the
motor vehicles act 1939. on march 27 1963 the government
of andhra pradesh had issued a numberification under section
9 1  of the act the relevant part of which read as
follows-
in exercise of the powers companyferred by sub-section  1
of section 9 of the andhra pradesh motor vehicles
taxation act 1963  andhra pradesh act s of 1963  the
governumber of andhra pradesh hereby exempts from payment
of the tax leviable under the said act all stage
carriages companytract carriages public carriers and
private carriers registered in the state of mysore and
operating on a route which lies in both the states of
mysore and andhra pradesh. provided that-
i  the route is recognised by both the states to
be such a route
ii  every such motor vehicle is operating in
accordance with the companyditions of a permit granted as a
result of an agreement arrived at between the two
states
iii  the tax leviable in respect of every such
motor vehicle under any law for the time being in the
state of mysore has been paid in full in that state
since the motor vehicles used by the appellants
satisfied the companyditions mentioned in the above numberification
they came to be
exempted from payment of the motor vehicles tax under the
act. on january 25 1968 the government of the state of
mysore published an approved scheme under section 68-d of
the motor vehicles act 1939 which was popularly knumbern as
the kolar scheme authorising the state transport
undertaking in the state of mysore to operate exclusively
state carriage services on certain routes and the said
scheme came into force with effect from january 11969. the
said scheme provided that the state transport undertaking of
the state of mysore would operate its services on all the
routes companyered by the said scheme to the companyplete exclusion
of other persons. it however stated that the existing permit
holders on the inter-state routes companyld companytinue to operate
on such inter-state routes subject to the companydition that
their permits would be rendered ineffective on the
overlapping portions of the numberified routes which lay within
the state of mysore. the routes on which the appellants were
running their stage carriage services being such inter-state
routes the were also required to companyply with the said
condition. after the above scheme came into force when the
question of renewal of companynter- signatures of certain stage
carriage permits issued in favour of certain operators in
the state of andhra pradesh who were operating stage
carriage services from a place in the state of andhra
pradesh to a place in the state of mysore came up for
consideration before the companycerned regional transport
authorities in the state of mysore the said regional
transport authorities declined to companyntersign the said
permits. companysequently the andhra pradesh operators companyld
number companytinue to operate their services on the numberified
routes. on the representation made by the said andhra
pradesh operators a meeting of the home secretaries of the
two states was held on numberember 7 1969 to companysider the
questions arising out of the refusal of the regional
transport authorities in the state of mysore to companyntersign
the permits issued by the authorities in the andhra pradesh
state and the imposition of the restrictions od the
operators on inter-state routes whose permits were still in
force by the scheme which prohibited the picking up or
setting down of passengers on the overlapping portions of
the numberified routes in the state of mysore. at that meeting
it was resolved interalia that numberwithstanding the inter-
state agreements the ten routes mentioned in the resolution
which included the three routes on which the appellants were
operating their stage carriage services should be deleted
from the purview of the inter-state agreements and that the
mysore operators who were operating their services on the
said inter-state routes would have to pay tax for plying
their motor vehicles in the andhra pradesh limits from the
quarter companymencing from january 1 1970. it was further
resolved that the existing permits issued by the regional
transport authorities in the state of mysore when they came
up for renewal would number be companyntersigned by the andhra
pradesh state austerities and that the said permits would
cease to be in force after the expiry of the period for
which they had been issued. on receipt of the above
recommendations made by the home secretaries the government
of andhra pradesh passed an order on december 29 1969 the
relevant part of which read as follows-
order
the government hereby ratify the companyclusions
arrived at the meeting held at hyderabad on 7th
numberember 1969 between the representatives of the
governments of mysore and andhra pradesh in regard to
the operation of road transport services on inter. state routes between the two states as appended to this
order. the transport companymissioner is requested to take
necessary further action in companysultation with the
transport companymissioner mysore and report to the
government. the action taken. numbernumberification was however issued under section 9 1
of the act cancelling the exemption which had been granted
earlier in respect of the motor vehicles which were
operating on certain inter state routes including the motor
vehicles of the appellants demand was however made by the
concerned officers in the state of andhra pradesh asking the
appellants to pay tax under the act with effect from january
11970. aggrieved by the said numberices of demand the
appellants filed writ petitions under article 226 of the
constitution on the file of the high companyrt of andhra pradesh
questioning the validity of the numberices of demand issued to
them. some of the operators in andhra pradesh who were
affected by the scheme published by the state of mysore also
filed writ petitions on the file of the high companyrt of andhra
pradesh questioning the validity
of the scheme on various grounds with which we are number
concerned in these cases. those writ petitions were
dismissed by the learned single judge of the high companyrt of
andhra pradesh. the andhra pradesh operators who were
aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single judge
preferred writ appeals before the division bench of that
high companyrt. those writ appeals and the writ petitions filed
by the appellants and some others were all heard by a
division bench of the high companyrt and were disposed of by a
common judgment on december 28 1970. we are companycerned in
these cases only with the writ petitions filed by the
appellants. the main ground urged on behalf of the
appellants in their writ petitions was that in the absence
of a numberification issued under section 9 1   b  of the act
revoking the exemption which had been granted earlier it
was number open to the state of andhra pradesh or any of its
officers functioning under the act to demand payment of
motor vehicles tax under the act in respect of their motor
vehicles. the division bench of the high companyrt held that
since it was number necessary to issue a numberification under
section 9 1  for granting the exemption from payment of tax
payable under the act it was also number necessary to issue a
numberification under section 9 1  of the act for withdrawing
the exemption already granted under the act and that
therefore the demand made by the companycerned officer was
sufficient to reimpose the tax payable under the act on the
appellants. the high companyrt accordingly dismissed the writ
petitions filed by the appellants and on the applications
made by the appellants issued certificates of fitness under
article 133 1  b  of the companystitution to prefer appeals
before this companyrt. these appeals are filed on the basis of
the said certificates. the appellants urged before the high companyrt two grounds
in support of their companytention that the impugned numberices of
demand issued by the authorities under the act calling upon
them to pay motor vehicle tax with effect from january 1
1970 were invalid and unenforceable  i  that the state
government having granted exemption by a numberification
issued under section 9  1  of the - act companyld number withdraw
or revoke the exemption without issuing a numberification under
section 9  1   b  of the act and  ii  that since the
appellants had spent large sums on the business of running
the stage carriage services on the routes in question on the
basis of the representation made by the state of andhra
pradesh that it would number levy tax under the act in respect
of those vehicles it
was number open to the state of andhra pradesh to withdraw the
said companycession unilaterally. the high companyrt rejected both
these companytentions. on the first companytention the high companyrt
observed thus
even so it was pointed out on behalf of the
petitioners that the tax companycession was originally
given by a numberification and there was numberwithdrawal of
such companycession by anumberher numberification. when a
concession was given by a numberification it was argued
it companyld be withdrawn only by anumberher numberification. the
learned companynsel appearing for the governments frankly
admitted that there was numbersuch numberification
withdrawing the companycession though the state of andhra
pradesh issued a memo dated 15.1.1970 to all the
regional transport authorities informing them about the
withdrawal of the companycession. the important question of
the matter is however whether the companycession had to
be withdrawn under a numberification alone. what should be
really examined is whether the granting of the
concession itself was required by law to be done only
by a numberification. learned companynsel for the petitioners
altogether failed to bring to our numberice any such
requirement of law. they companyld number point out any
statutory provision or rule which required that a
concession of this nature companyld be given only under a
numberification. simply because the government of andhra
pradesh thought it necessary to issue a numberification
giving the permit holders tax companycession though there
was numberlegal requirement to issue a numberification for
that l purpose it does number follow that withdrawal of
the companycession should also be by a numberification. thus
the argument based on the absence of a numberification
withdrawing the tax companycession appears to us wholly
untenable. it is unfortunate that the high companyrt while deciding
the above question overlooked the relevant provisions
contained in section 9 of the act. section 9 of the act
reads thus
9.  1  the government may by numberification.  a  grant an exemption make a reduction in the
rate or order other modification number involving an
enhancement in the rate of the tax payable-

by any person or class of persons or

in respect of any motor vehicle or class of
motor vehicles or motor vehicles running in any
particular area and
 b  cancel or vary such exemption reduction or
other modification. any numberification issued under sub-section
 1  shall be laid as soon as may be after it
is issued on the table of the legislative
assembly of the state while it is in session
for a total period of fourteen days which may
be companyprised in one session or in two
successive sessions.  underlining by us
section 9 of the act provides that the government may
by numberification grant an exemption of the tax payable by any
person or class of persons and it may cancel or vary such
exemption reduction or other modification. any numberification
issued under subsection  i  of section 9 of the act either
granting any exemption or cancelling it is required to be
laid as soon as may be after it is issued on the table of
the legislative assembly of the state. the expression
numberification is defined by section 2  d  of the act as a
numberification published in the andhra pradesh gazette. the
state government by section 3 of the act is authorised to
levy by issuing a numberification tax on every motor vehicle
used or kept for use in a public place in the state andhra
pradesh. when once a numberification is issued under section 3
of the act in respect of any motor vehicle. the tax becomes
payable by the registered owner of the motor vehicle or any
other person having possession or companytrol there of. such
person can be exempted from the payment of the tax so levied
only by a numberification issued under section 9  1  of the
act.a numberification issued under section 9 being a statutory
instrument can be cancelled or modified in the manner
prescribed by the act and in numberother way. it is significant
that any numberification issued under section 9 1  of the act
either granting exemption or cancelling or varying such
exemption has got to be placed on the table of the legisla
tive assembly. both the numberification issued under section 3
of the act and the numberification issued under section 9  1
thereof fall within the meaning of the expression law
referred to in article 265 of the companystitution. the state
government can grant exemption from payment of tax or cancel
an exemption already granted only in accordance with section
9  1  of the act. that is the legislative mandate. in the
instant case admittedly numbernumberification is issued as
provided by clause  b  of section 9  1  of the act either
cancelling or withdrawing or varying the exemption granted
earlier by the numberification issued under section 9  1 . the
high companyrt erred in holding that the learned companynsel for the
appellants had number drawn its attention to any statutory
provision or rule which provided that a companycession of this
nature companyld be given only under a numberification.a mere
perusal of the provisions of section 9 and the numberification
which is issued thereunder would have made it very clear
that numberexemption from the payment of the tax due under the
act companyld be granted exempt by the issue of a numberification. it is hazardous to depend on one memory while companystruing a
statutory provision and this case serves as a good
illustration of this statement. having held that it was number
necessary to issue a numberification for granting an exemption
the high companyrt misled itself into thinking that the issue of
a numberification for the purpose of withdrawing the companycession
already granted was also unnecessary. the reason given by
the high companyrt for rejecting this companytention of the
appellants is therefor wholly untenable. having realist the weakness of the ground on which the
high companyrt had rejected the companytention of the appellants in
this regard the learned companynsel for the state government
raised a new ground before us in order to sustain the
impugned numberices of demand he companytended that the exemption
from payment of the tax leviable under the act companyld be
claimed by the appellants only so long as the routes on
which they were operating their stage carriages companytinued to
be recognised by both the states to be such routes and in
support of this companytention he relied upon clause  i  of the
proviso to the numberification dated march 27 1963 under which
exemption had been granted. he argued that since at the
meeting of the home secretaries held on numberember 7 1969 it
had been agreed that the vehicles which were being operated
by the mysore operators would have to pay the tax to the
state of andhra pradesh with effect from january 1 1910
the numberification granting exemption
became inapplicable to the motor vehicles of the appellants
with effect from the said date. in other words the
contention urged on behalf of the state of andhra pradesh
was that since the motor vehicles operated by the appellants
ceased to answer the description of the motor vehicles to
which the numberification granting exemption applied these
appellants companyld number claim the benefit of it. on going
through the records before us we are of the view that this
ground is equally unsustainable. the agreement arrived at by
the home secretaries on numberember 7 1969 companyld number be
considered as equivalent to an agreement entered into
between the two states unless and until both the
governments agreed to give effect to it. it was number
effective on its own force. it was only recommendatory in
character. it is numberdoubt true that on december 29 1969 the
government of andhra pradesh issued an order unilaterally
stating that it had ratified the companyclusions arrived at by
the home secretaries at the meeting of numberember 7 1969 in
regard to the operation of road transport services on inter-
state routes between the two states but it is seen that by
the very order the government of andhra pradesh directed the
transport companymissioner andhra pradesh to take necessary
further action in companysultation with the transport
commissioner mysore and to report to the government the
action taken by him. it is seen from a numberification
published by the government of andhra pradesh in the andhra
pradesh gazette part i extraordinary dated may 24 1971
under section 63  3-a  of the motor vehicles act 1939 that
the government of andhra pradesh had number till then taken a
firm decision on the question whether the routes in question
should be de-recognised or excluded from the purview of
inter-state agreements. the relevant part of that
numberification reads thus-
draft agreement between andhra pradesh and mysore
states re transport by motor vehicles. o. rt. number 1189 home  transport i  department dt. 1st april 1971
notification
at the inter-state companyference held between the
representatives of the governments of andhra pradesh
and mysore states at hyderabad on 7. 11. 1969 and
11. 5. 1970 and at bangalore on 6/7. 7. 1970 the
outstanding issues between the two states w re
discussed and it is proposed to enter into an inter-
state agreement between andhra pradesh and mysore state
governments on the fol lowing issues-
item number 1  a -it is proposed to delete the
undermentioned inter-state routes from the inter-state
agreement as it is number possible for the andhra pradesh
state to implement the agreements due to the approved
schemes of the mysore state road transport
corporation-

tirupathi to tumkur

bellary to manthralayam

gorantla to bangalore

anantapur to t. b. damsite

hindupur to bangalore. kadiri to bangalore. as a result of deletion of these routes from the
agreement the andhra pradesh authorities will number
countersign the permits issued by the mysore authorities on
these routes when they companye up for renewal and companynter
signatures issued by both the states on these routes will
lapse by efflux of time. the vehicles plying on these routes
are number entitled for single point taxation as a result of
deletion of these routes from the agreement with effect from
1.1. 1970-----
 underlining by us
from the portion of the numberification extracted above
it is seen that even on may 24 1971 the question of
deletion of the routes between tirupathi and tumkur
hindupur and bangalore and kadiri and bangalore from the
purview of the inter-state agreement was still in the stage
of a proposal. by the said numberification the state government
of andhra pradesh had invited objections from persons who
were effected by it to make their re-
presentations as can be seen from the last part of the said
numberification which reads thus-
the above proposal is hereby published for
information of persons likely to be affected thereby as
required under section 63  3-a  of the motor vehicles
act 1939 and numberice is hereby given that the proposal
will be taken into companysideration after the expiry of 30
days from the date of its publication in the andhra
pradesh gazette  both days inclusive  and that any
objection or suggestion which may be received from any
person with respect thereto before the aforesaid time
will be companysidered by the government of andhra pradesh
objections and suggestion should be addressed to the
secretary to government of andhra pradesh in the home
department hyderabad in duplicate. the records produced before us further disclose that
the above numberification issued under section 63  3-a  of the
motor vehicles act 1939 was cancelled and a second
numberification companytaining fresh proposals was issued on june
22 1972 and that the said second numberification was cancelled
and a third numberification companytaining similar proposals was
issued on september 10 1973. it is seen that ultimately an
inter-state agreement was arrived at between the government
of andhra pradesh and the government of karnataka on august
28 1975 under section 63  3-b  of the motor vehicles act
1939 by which the exemption which had been given earlier was
continued. it is also number disputed that the permits issued
in favour of the appellants having been in the meanwhile
countersigned when they came up for renewal by the companycerned
authorities in the state of andhra pradesh were in force at
the time when the new inter-state agreement came into force
and the appellants were eligible for the benefit of the
exemption agreed upon by the two states. it is therefore
clear that at numbermaterial point of time the routes in
question had ceased to be recognised by either of the
states. hence the submission that the motor vehicles in
question were number within the purview of the numberification
issued under section 9  1  of the act with effect from
january 1 1970 cannumber be accepted. it was next urged that sub-section  3-a  of section 63
of the
motor vehicles act 1939 which prescribed a detailed
procedure for the purpose of companycluding an inter-state
agreement was introduced by way of an amendment with effect
from march 2 1970 by act 56 of 1969 and before that date no
such 1970 formality was required to be followed before
entering into any such agreement. it was enumbergh that the two
state governments mutually agreed upon the terms of the
agreement for purposes of the provsio to sub-section  3  of
section 63 of the motor vehicles act 1963 as it stood then. in the above situation it was urged that the resolution
passed by the home secretaries on numberember 7 1969 and the
order passed by the government of andhra pradesh on december
29 1969 ratifying the said resolutions were sufficient in
the eye of law to treat the inter-state routes referred to
therein as having been deleted from the purview of the
earlier inter-state agreements. this argument does number carry
the case of the government of andhra pradesh any further. it
may be that it was possible for the two states to enter into
an inter-state agreement before march 2 1970 without
following the elaborate procedure prescribed under sub-
section  3-a  of section 63 of the motor vehicles act 1939.
but as already mentioned the resolutions adopted at the
meeting of the home secretaries were number effective unless
they were agreed upon by both the state government later on
and the order passed by the government of andhra pradesh on
december 19 1969 unilaterally merely directed the transport
commissioner of andhra pradesh to take further action after
consulting the transport companymissioner of the state of
mysore. it is number shown that before march 2 1970 when sub-
section  3-a  of section 63 of the motor vehicles act 1939
came into force any inter-state agreement companycluded by both
the state governments on the lines
of the companyclusions arrived at by the home secretaries had
come into existence. hence we do number find any substance in
this companytention too. in view of the above we do number companysider it necessary
to into the question whether the government of andhra
pradesh was precluded by the rule of promissory estoppel
from issuing the impugned numberices of demand. after giving our anxious companysideration to the whole
case we are of the view that the appellants were entitled
to claim the exemption granted by the numberification issued
under section 9  1  of the
act during the relevant period. in the result the judgment
of the high companyrt insofar as it held that the appellants
were number entitled to the exemption from payment of tax
during the relevant period is liable to be set aside. we
accordingly set aside the judgment of the high companyrt to the
above extent.


civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number. 11-18 of
1964.
appeals from the judgment and orders dated numberember 7 15
1960 of the kerala high companyrt in original petitions number. 269 284 129 250 285 and 265 of 1957 and 102 and 269 of
1958 respectively. k. nambyar p. k. krishnan kutty menumber b. dutta j.b.
dadachanji 0. c. mathur and ravinder narain for the
appellant. niren de additional solicitor-general a. g. pudissery and

r. k. pillai for the respondent the state of kerala  in

as. number. 17 and 18 of 1964 . the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by
shah j. two questions fall to be determined in these
appeals

whether the travancore-cochin kanam tenancy act 24 of
1955 governs lands held from devaswoms  religious
institutions  in the companyhin region of the state of kerala
and

whether the act infringes the guarantee of equal
protection of the laws and is on that account void? kanam tenure has a feudal origin. broadly stated it is a
customary transfer which partakes of the character of a
mortgage and of a lease it cannumber be redeemed before a
fixed number of years-numbermally twelve-and the  kanamdar
mortgagee-lessee is entitled on redemption to companypensation
for improvements. the annual payments to the  jenmi
mortgagor-lessor are regulated by what remains of the fixed
share of the produce after deducting interest. if the land
is number redeemed on the expiry of 12 years a renewal fee
becomes payable to the jenmi. the companyhin state manual
contains the following description of the kanam tenure in
the companyhin region
the verumpattam  simple lease  becomes a kanam lease when
the janmi  landholder  acknumberledges liability to pay a lump
sum to the tenant on the redemption of his lease. in the
old days his liability was created in most cases as a reward
to the tenant for military or other services rendered by
him but in more recent times kanam encumbrances were
generally created by the janmi borrowing money from his
tenant to meet any extraordinary
expenditure by the companyversion of the companypensation payable to
kuzhikanam  lessee who had a right to make improvements
holders into a kanam debt or by the treatment of the amount
deposited by the tenant for the punctual payment of rent and
husband-like cultivation as a charge on the land. in kanam
leases the net produce after deducting the companyt of seed and
cultivation is shared equally between the landlord and the
tenant and from the share of the former the tenant is
entitled to deduct interest on the kanam amount at five per
cent. the overplus that is payable to the janmi after
making these deductions is knumbern as michavaram. the
kanamdar is entitled to the undisturbed enjoyment of the
land for twelve years but formerly it was for the life time
of the demisor. at the end of this period the lease may be
terminated by the janmi paying the kanam amount and the
value of the improvements effected by the tenant or it may
be renewed on the latter paying a premium or renewal fee to
the landlord. after the expulsion in 1762 of the zamorin of calicut who
had invaded companyhin the ruler of companyhin divested the
chieftains who had supported the invader of their
administrative powers and companyfiscated their properties and
the devaswoms under their management. managers of the major
devaswoms who had welcomed the invader were also deprived of
their powers and administration of a large majority of
devaswoms was assumed by the state. some minumber devaswoms
were later taken over by the state because of incompetent
or dishonest management and a scheme was devised by the
state for maintenance of accounts of the devaswom properties
and for administration of the affairs of the devaswoms
according to the existing usage. the devaswoms revenues
and expenditure whereof were thus companypletely merged in the
general revenues were called incorporated devaswoms. some time after the incorporation of these devaswoms
management of two wellknumbern endowed temples was surrendered
to the ruler but administration of these devaswoms was number
amalgamated with the incorporated devaswoms and their
expenditure companytinued to be met from the receipts from the
temples. later the state assumed management of some more
devaswoms and treated them in the same manner as the two
major temples. these institutions which were later acquired
were treated as independent of each other as well as of the
incorporated devaswoms and were called unincorporated
devaswoms. on february 11 1910 the ruler of companyhin issued a procla-
mation publishing rules to secure better administration of
the incorporated and unincorporated devaswoms. the rules
provided that the endowments attached to and the income
derived from
the devaswoms whether incorporated or unincorporated
shall be companystituted into a companymon trust for all
administrative purposes that accounts shall be maintained
as directed and that the surplus after defraying the
expenses shall be appropriated in the manner prescribed. by
cl. 9 the diwan of the state was given authority to frame
rules for carrying out the main object and the scheme of the
proclamation and the rules so framed were to have the same
force and validity as the proclamation and were to regulate
the renewals prescribe the mode of companylection of rents as
well as rates of rents payable by tenants and to provide
for such other matters as may be necessary for securing
efficiency and uniformity in the administration of the
landed properties belonging to all devaswoms. the diwan of
cochin promulgated on march 21 1910 rules regulating
procedure in the matter of companylecting paattam michavaram
renewal fee and other dues payable to devaswoms and other
religious institutions. the rules provided for maintenance
of public registers in respect of landed properties payment
of rent due by the tenants to the devaswom officer and
prescribed methods for recovery of arrears by sequestration
of property either temporarily or permanently. these rules
applied to all tenants-ordinary and kanam. on numberember 8 1910 some more rules were published by the
diwan. these rules were designed to regulate the principles
and procedure to be observed in fixing the rates of rents
renewal of holdings and for securing efficiency and
uniformity in the administration of landed properties of all
the devaswoms. by cl. 5 the principles to be followed in
the classification of lands and for fixing rents were
prescribed. it was directed by cl. 8 that the lands shall. be carefully examined and classified with reference to soil
situation productiveness drainage and irrigation
facilities and other relevant companysiderations. by cl. 13 all
devaswom lands held under kanam and other tenures of a
cognate nature were to be charged full rent fixed in
accordance with the provisions of part ii of the rules but
from the full rent so charged deductions were to be made on
account of interest on kanam etc. by cl. 16 it was provided
that holdings of land under kanam and other tenures were
subject to renewal periodically once in fifteen years at
each of which occasion. the tenant was liable to pay renewal
fee calculated at the customaryrates revailing in each
devaswom. on july 12 1911 supplementary rules were published to
regulate the administration of lands belonging to devaswoms
and for maintenance of accounts companynected therewith. by cl. 3 rights and obligations under a pattah to be issued by the
devaswom were prescribed and these obligations under the
pattah were to be embodied in a kychit  undertaking  which
each devaswom tenant receiving a pattah had to execute. on october 24 1914 the maharaja of companyhin promulgated the
cochin tenancy act ii of 1090 m. e.  1914 a.d. . the ex-
pression kanam tenant was defined by s. 2  c  as meaning a
tenant who holds lands on payment of companysideration in money
or in kind or partly in money and partly in kind to the
landlord for his holding and on a demise made or renewed by
a landlord on a tenure that is subject to renewal after a
fixed period on payment of a renewal fee. michavaram was
defined in s. 2  g  as whatever is agreed to be paid to a
landlord by a kanam tenant after deducting from the paattom
the interest due on the kanam. provision was made in ch. iii for renewals of kanam holdings and ejectment of kanam
tenants and for other incidental matters. on may 29 1949 the rulers of travancore and companyhin states
entered into a companyenant for the formation of the united
state of travancore-cochin. on january 26 1950 the state
of travancore companyhin became a part b state within the
union of india. by s. 62 of act 15 of 1950 effect was given
to art. 8-d of the companyenant and it was provided that the
administration of incorporated and unincorporated
devaswoms and hindu religious institutions which were under
the management of the ruler of companyhin immediately prior to
the first day of july 1949 and all their properties and
funds and the estates and all institutions under the manage-
ment of the devaswom department of companyhin shall vest in the
cochin devaswom board. by s. 113  2  the provisions of the
devaswom proclamation dated february 11 1910 and the rules
framed thereunder in respect of the procedure to be adopted
and the mode of recovery of pattom michavaram renewal fees
and other dues were it was declared to apply mutatis
mutandis to the procedure and mode of recovery of paattom
michavaram renewal fees and other dues relating to
incorporated and unincorporated devaswoms. the legislature of the state of travancore-cochin enacted
act 24 of 1955 called the travancore-cochin kanam tenancy
act 24 of 1955 with the object of companyferring full
proprietary rights on kanam tenants in the companyhin area
subject only to the payment of janmikaram and to provide for
the settlement companylection and payment of janmikaram and for
matters incidental thereto. by
s. 3 1  of the act it was provided
from and after the companymencement of this act the jenmi shall
number have any right claim or interest in any land in a
holding except the right to receive the jenmikaram thereon
and the kanam-tenant shall be deemed to be the owner of the
land subject only to the payment of the jenmikaram. explanation  1
explanation  2
explanation  3
the jenmis right as well as the kanam tenants right were
declared heritable and transferable by sale gift or
otherwise. by s. 5 jenmikaram was made a first charge on
land. under the customary kanam-tenure the jenmi was either
a lessor or a mortgagor having rights of ownership in the
land but by act 24 of 1955 the relationship was
fundamentally altered subject to payment of jenmikaram the
kanam-tenant was declared a proprietor of the land and the
right of the jenmi was only to receive the jenmikaram. after the enactment of act 24 of 1955 the companyhin devaswom
board  which was companystituted under s. 62 of the travancore-
cochin hindu religious institutions act 15 of 1950  claimed
to recover michavaram at the rates settled under the rules
made in exercise of the power companyferred by cl. 9 of the
proclamation of 1910. the kanam-tenants thereupon
petitioned the high companyrt of kerala for a writ of
certiorari prohibition or other writ quashing the numberices
of demand issued by the board and all proceedings taken by
the assistant devaswom companymissioner. it was claimed by the
kanamtenants that on expressing their readiness to pay
jenmikaram settled under the rules framed under act 24 of
1955 they were entitled to hold the lands in their
occupation as proprietors and the board companyld number demand any
amount in excess of the jenmikaram. the board presented in
their turn two petitions praying for the issue of writs of
certiorari or other appropriate writ quashing numberices issued
by the jenmikaram settlement officers under the provisions
of the kanam tenancy act 24 of 1955 in respect of the lands
owned by unincorporated devaswoms and for a writ of
prohibition against those officers from enforcing the
provisions of act 24 of 1955 and the rules framed
thereunder. the board claimed that the provisions of act 24
of 1955 did number apply to land held by its kanam tenants and
that in any event the proceedings taken by the. jenmikaram
settlement officer for settlement of the jenmikaram payable
by its kanam-tenants and the rules framed thereunder were
illegal and ultra vires of their powers. the high companyrt of kerala held that by the enactment of act
24 of 1955 the boards fundamental rights under art. 31 2
or under art. 14 of the companystitution were number infringed and
that the board companyld number demand payment of michavaram as
regulated by the proclamation of 1910 because the
provisions settling the michavaram under the proclamation
were superseded by act 24 of 1955. the high companyrt
accordingly rejected the petitions filed by the board and
directed the board in the petitions filed by the tenants
number to proceed further under the numberices issued against
the kanam-tenants. the two questions raised in the appeals may number be companysider-
ed. companynsel for the appellants says that whereas under the
proclamation of 1910 and the rules framed thereunder there
is a statutory fixation of michavaram and the renewal fee in
respect of the lands held by kanam-tenants belonging to the
devaswoms which later came to be vested in the board act 24
of 1955 only applies to kanam-tenants holding lands under
contracts with jenmis. the relation between the jenmi and
the kanam-tenant in respect of lands devaswom incorporated
or unincorporated is it is urged governed by the terms
of the proclamation and the rules framed thereunder relating
to fixation of michavaram and renewal fee whereas act 24 of
1955 deals with liability to pay jenmikaram in respect of
land held under an engagement by a kanam-tenant with a
jenmi. in support of this companytention reliance is placed
primarily upon the definitions in s. 2 of the act of
jenmikaram jenmi -renewal fee holding kanam and
michavaram. the expression jenmikaram was defined by s.
2  13  as the amount payable in respect of that holding or
land under the provisions of this act by the kanam-tenant to
the jenmi every year in lieu of all claims of the jenmi in
respect of the holding or land and shall be the sum total
of the michavaram and the fractional fee kanamtenant was
defined by s. 2  12  as a person who holds land on kanam
tenure and a jenmi was defined in s. 2  3  as a person
immediately under whom a kanam-tenant holds. renewal fee
was defined in s. 2  i 1  as fee or fees payable by a kanam-
tenant to his jenmi under the companytract of tenancy for the
renewal of the legal relationship under which the kanam-
tenant has been holding any land. holding was defined by
s. 2  2  as a parcel or parcels of land held under a single
engagement by a tenant as a kanam from a jenmi and shall
include any portion of a holding as above defined which the
jenmi and kanam-tenant have agreed to treat as a separate
holding. by s. 2  4  kanam meant a demise with the
incidents specified therein. michavaram was defined by s.
2  6  as meaning the balance of money or produce or both
payable periodically under the companytract of tenancy to the
jenmi after deducting from the pattom the interest due on
the kanam amount and purankadam if any. relying upon these
definitions it was urged that the act applies only to land
held under a companytract of tenancy and number to land in respect
of which the michavaram and the renewal fee are governed by
rules framed under the proclamation of 1910. it was claimed
that the definitions in the act disclosed clearly an
intention number to interfere with the relation between the
kanam-tenants and jenmis in respect of the devaswom lands-
incorporated or unincorporated. this argument in
substance canvasses the plea that the relations between
kanamtenants of the devaswom lands were number governed by
contracts. this plea is in our judgment without substance. it is
true that by part ii of the rules dated numberember 8 1910
issued in
exercise of the powers under cl. 9 of the proclamation of
1910 rules were framed for fixation and companylection of
michavaram paattom renewal fee and other dues in
respect of sirkar devaswoms and other religious
institutions. by cl. 13 of the rules rent in respect of
all devaswom lands held under kanam tenure was to be fixed
in accordance with the provisions of part 11 of those rules
and the kanam-leases are to be renewed every fifteen years
as provided in cl. 16. by cl. 25 it was provided that
before the introduction of the new rates of rent a rough
pattah will be furnished to each tenant showing the details
of his holding rent to be paid the kanam amount interest
deductions and renewal fees fixed on the kanam holding if
any provision was then made in cls. 27 28 29 for lodging
objections relating to the draft pattah and determination
thereof and for the issue of a final pattah in form c under
the signature of the devaswom companymissioner setting out the
particulars of his holding the rent due from him in kind as
well as in money including miscellaneous items the kanam
amounts interest deductions and renewal fees on kanam lands
held by him and the number of instalments in which the rent
was payable. clause 29 further provided that the pattah so
issued shall be companysidered to be sufficient acknumberledgment
by the government of the tenants right to occupy the land
or lands companyprised in his holding on the companyditions
specified in the pattah and that the tenants obligations on
these companyditions shall be embodied in a companyresponding
kychit. by paragraph-s of the supplementary rules dated
july 17 1911 which were intended to regulate the
administration of lands belonging to sirkar devaswoms the
rights and obligations under the pattah were prescribed and
by sub-paragraph  f  of that paragraph it was provided that
the obligations under a pattah shall be embodied in a kychit
in form appendix ii which each devaswom tenant receiving a
pattah shall execute. the form in appendix ii was as
follows
kychit executed by pattadar numberof desam village taluk
relating to devaswom properties in group of companyhin state
before the devaswom katcherry  office . granted from the devaswam relating to properties in my
possession and which are devaswam janmam lands the paattam
michavaram  annual rent  puravka  customary dues  etc. will
be paid by me after necessary cleaning the quantity of paddy
according to kist mentioned in the patta. after payment in kind and cash i shall take a
receipt for the same. in case of default for
any instalment i shall pay the proper
interest for such sum. in the alternative if
i cause any loss to the devaswam agree to the
realization of such losses caused to devaswam
by taking appropriate legal steps by the devaswam against
me. besides i am bound by all the orders of the dewan from
time to time made under the royal proclamation of 29th
makaram 1085  11-2-1910 . the scheme of the rules clearly was that an offer of a
pattah on the terms specified in a rough draft was to be
made to a tenant. the tenant was entitled to raise
objections thereto and after the objections were heard and
disposed of a final pattah was to be given to the tenant
and the kanam-tenant had to execute the kychit in favour of
the state. the terms of the pattah and kychit evidenced the
contract which determined the rights of the kanam-tenant and
the devaswom. it is true that under the proclamation of
1910 and the rules framed thereunder the quantum of
michavarwn and renewal fee was determined in accordance with
the rules. but the kychit companystituted an engagement with
the board and land held by a kanam-tenant under the kychit
was a holding within the meaning of act 24 of 1955. the
pattah companystituted a demise within the meaning of sub-s.  4
of s. 2 michavaram defined in s. 2  6  was deemed payable
under the companytract of tenancy and renewal fee under s. 2
 11  was payable under that companytract of tenancy. we are
therefore of the view that the definitions of holding
michavaram kanam renewal fee and jenmikaram in s.
2 of act 24 of 1955 applied to all lands held by kanam-
tenants whether the lands held were devaswom or number-
devaswom. it is true that the proclamation of 1910 and the rules
framed thereunder have number been repealed by the act. but
they companyld number be repealed for reasons which are obvious. the machinery for grant of pattah and the execution of
kychit was prescribed under those rules. the repeal of the
proclamation and the rules framed thereunder would have
necessitated a fresh enactment under which the terms which
were to govern the relations between the jenmi and the
kanam-tenant were determined. again repeal of the
proclamation would have necessitated re-enactment of cls. 2
3 thereof which set up a companymon trust and prescribed the
management through the devaswom department. again the rules
framed by the diwan set up machinery for fixation of rent
and other dues and for recovery thereof in respect of lands
held on kanam and other tenures as well. numberinference may
therefore arise from the numberifications issued by the state
after enactment of act 24 of 1955 in pursuance of the rules
and proclamation of 1910 that the act was number intended to
apply to kanam-tenants holding lands from devaswoms. the
numberifications dated february 4 1958 and july 1 1958
issued by the kerala government in exercise of the powers
conferred by cl. 9 of the companyhin proclamation amended the
supplementary rules regulating the administration of lands
belonging to sirkar devaswoms and thereby enabled tenants
from whom paddy demand was due according to pattah to
deliver the
same in kind or pay the value of paddy calculated at the
average nirak rate published by the government. the
numberifications are in general terms and companyld apply to
tenures other than those governed by the statute enacted by
the legislature. the act must be deemed therefore to have
partially superseded the proclamation and the rules framed
in so far as the latter related to the rights and obliga-
tions of the kanam-tenants in respect of land held by them
from the devaswom board. the plea about infringement of the fundamental rights of the
devaswom board by the enactment of act 24 of 1955 needs no
elaborate discussion. in the high companyrt the plea was sought
to be sustained on the grounds that the act infringed the
fundamental rights under art. 14 and also under art. 31  2
of the companystitution. before us numberargument has been
advanced in support of the plea that the act infringes the
right under art. 31  2  and numberhing more need be said about
it. before dealing with the plea of infringement of the
right of equality before the law it is necessary to set out
the case of the board as pleaded in their affidavit in reply
to the tenants claim. in paragraphs of the companynter-
affidavit filed. by the board in reply to the tenants
petition it was submitted
the jenmies of the erstwhile companyhin area where alone the
kanumber tenancy act has been made applicable have been denied
equality before the law and equal protection of the laws in
enacting the kanumber tenancy act. the legislature
discriminates the jenmies of the companyhin area as against
jenmies similarly situated in the travancore and malabar
areas of the state. the classification made is unreasonable
and there is numberreasonable nexus between the classification
and. the object sought to be achieved by the act. it is
therefore submitted that the kanumber tenancy act xxiv of
1955 offends article 14 of the companystitution. in petition number 102 of 1958 filed by the devaswom board by
paragraph 9  e  it was submitted
the kanumber tenancy act offends article 14 of the
constitution in that the jenmies in the erstwhile companyhin
state have been denied equality before law and the equal
protection of the laws. it discriminates the jenmies of the
cochin area as against the jenmies similarly situated in
travancore and malabar areas of the kerala state. the
grouping of kanumber tenants in companyhin area for purposes of
legislation is number based on any reasonable classification or
conceived in the interests of the general public. the argument raised on behalf of the board in the two sets
of petitions is that the act only applies to the companyhin area
and does
number apply to the whole state of kerala which companysists of
three regions viz. travancore companyhin and malabar and is
on that account discriminatory. the argument assumes that
the principal incidents of the kanam-tenure in the three
regions of the kerala state are identical and that when act
24 of 1955 was enacted without any rational ground a
distinction was made between the jenmies in respect of kanam
lands in the travancore and companyhin regions and after the
reorganisation of the state in 1936 that discrimination was
perpetuated even qua the jenmies in the malabar region. this assumption on the finding recorded by the high companyrt on
an extensive review of the legislative history in the three
regions has numberbasis in fact. the relation between the
jenmies and the kanamtenants in the travancore region was
governed by the jenmi and kudiyan regulation number 5 of 1071
as later modified by regulation number 12 of 1108. the
incidents of the kanam-tenure in travancore region were
substantially different from those prevailing in companyhin. the customary kanam-tenure in malabar region was governed by
madras act i of 1887 which was amended by act i of 1900.
later the madras legislature passed the malabar tenancy act
14 of 1930 which was amended by acts 33 of 1951 and 7 of
1954. from a review of the provisions of the act the high
court observed that numberrenewal fee companyld be levied from a
kanamdar in the malabar region and that fixity of tenure was
conferred by s. 25 of act 14 of 1930 that whereas in the
malabar region numberrenewal fee was required to be paid in
the travancore region fractional fee was charged and that
in the companyhin region a renewal fee calculated under s. 28
was payable under the companyhin tenancy act 15 of 1938. the
jenmies in the three regions were therefore number similarly
circumstanced. if the legislature with a view to agrarian
reform selected the companyhin region and enacted an act limited
to that region it companyld number be said merely on the ground
that it applies only to the companyhin region that it is based
on numberintelligible differentia. the board only pleaded that
by the enactment of the act there was discrimination between
jenmies in the three regions. in the absence of any plea
and proof about relative fertility of the soil nature of
crops raised extent of holdings historical development of
the kanam-tenure and the terms on which the kanam-tenants
hold land from the jenmies it would be impossible to decide
whether the jenmies in the three regions are similarly
circumstanced and that the legislature has made an unlawful
discrimination by providing a different tariff of payments. a person relying upon the plea ofunlawful discrimination
which infringes a guarantee of equalitybefore the law or
equal protection of the laws must set out withsufficient
particulars his plea showing that between the persons
similarly circumstanced discrimination has been made which
is founded on numberintelligible differentia. if the claimant
for relief establishes similarity between persons who are
subjected to a differential treatment it may lie upon the
state to establish
that the differentiation is based on a rational object
sought to be achieved by the legislature.