JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - In this appeal the sole question for consideration is whether the lower court was correct in holding that Section 13 of the Orissa Moneylenders Act would apply to a loan granted by the Mayurbhanj State Bank, prior to the merger of Mayurbhanj State with the then Province of Orissa on 1-4-1949. 2. Sometime in 1947 Respondent No. (2) took the loan in question from the aforesaid Bank and Respondent No. 1 stood as surety for the loan. At the time of the merger of Mayurbhanj State with the Province of Orissa, the Government of Orissa, in exercise of the powers conferred by the Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act, 1947 made an Order known as the Administration of Mayurbhanj State Order, 1949 continuing in force in the merged areas some of the old laws formerly subsisting in Mayurbhanj State and also applying some of the Central and Provincial Acts, with suitable modifications. Subsequently, after the passing of Section 290A of the Government of India Act 1935 the Governor of Orissa issued an Ordinance known as the Orissa Merged States (laws) Ordinance 1949 by which some of the laws then in force in the old Province of Orissa were applied to the Merged areas, including Mayurbhanj State, with suitable adaptations and modifications. The Orissa Moneylenders Act was one of the Acts so applied. But in the schedule attached to that Ordinance the exact nature of the adaptations made to that Act in its application to the former State of Mayurbhanj was not fully set out. But Section 8 of the Ordinance gave considerable discretion to the Court and other authorities to construe the Acts so applied. That section may be quoted in full: 8. For the purpose of facilitating the application in any of the merged States of any Act or Regulation specified in the Schedule, any Court or other authority may construe any such Act or Regulation with such alterations, not affecting the substance as may be necessary or proper, to adapt it to the matter before the Court or other authority. Subsequently the Ordinance was replaced by the Orissa Merged States' (Laws) Act, 1950. Section 8 of this Act is identical with Section 8 of the Ordinance, and the Orissa Moneylenders Act was one of the Acts mentioned in the Schedule attached to that Act as having been applied to the merged areas. 3. Mr. Subsequently the Ordinance was replaced by the Orissa Merged States' (Laws) Act, 1950. Section 8 of this Act is identical with Section 8 of the Ordinance, and the Orissa Moneylenders Act was one of the Acts mentioned in the Schedule attached to that Act as having been applied to the merged areas. 3. Mr. R.N. Misra for the Petitioner invited our attention to the definition of the expression 'loan' given in Section 2(i) of the Orissa Moneylenders Act which excluded any loan advanced by the State Government. According to him, as a matter of construction bearing in mind the principle laid down in Section 8 of the Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act the expression 'State Government' should be construed as including the former Government of Mayurbhanj (which merged with the Government of Orissa), in respect of loans advanced by that Government through any of its institutions prior to merger. Hence, according to him the loan in question being a loan advanced by the Mayurbhanj State Bank which was a department of the former Government of Mayurbhanj, must, as a matter of construction, be deemed to be a loan advanced by the State Government within the meaning of the definition given in Section 2(i) of the Orissa Moneylenders Act, and as such the provisions of that Act will have no application to the loan in question. 4. Mr. Misra also relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in S.J.C. No. 13 of 1954 decided on 8-7-1955 where it was held that the Mayurbhanj State Bank was a Department of the former State of Mayurbhanj and that the Government of Orissa is the present owner of that Bank. 5. Mr. Pal for the Respondents, however, conducted that the power given to this Court, by Section 8 of the Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act to construe the provisions of the Moneylenders Act in their application to Mayurbhanj State "with such alterations not affecting the substance thereof as may be necessary" for purposes of adaptation will not include the power to so construe the expression "State Government" given in toe definition section as to include the former Government of Mayurbhanj also, in respect of the suit transaction; according to him such a construction will amount to an 'alteration in substance.' and not a mere adaptation. He even went to the length of urging that Section 8 of the Merged States (Laws) Act in so far as it gives such wide powers of construction to a Court would amount to excessive delegation of legislative functions and may be ultra vires the Constitution. I do not think it necessary to discuss in detail such an extreme contention. There can be no question of the State Legislature abdicating its functions when it enacted Section 8 of the aforesaid Act. By using the limiting words 'not affecting the substance' and also by expressly saying that the power of a Court or other authority under that section is to be exercised for the purpose of 'adapting' the laws in force in the Province of Orissa to the merged areas, the Legislature made its intention clear that the alterations should be limited only to matters of form and not of substances. 6. When the Governor of Orissa promulgated the Orissa Merged States (Laws) Ordinance in 1949 and applied the provisions of the Orissa Moneylenders Act to the former State of Mayurbhanj, he knew very well that many of its provisions applied to loans granted prior to the date of commencement of the Ordinance. Thus Section 10 of the Act expressly refers to loans advanced either before or after the commencement of the Act. Similarly, Sections 11,12,13,14 and 15 by their very terms must apply to proceedings pending in law courts on the date of application of the Act to Mayurbhanj. Thus, with full knowledge that the Courts will have to construe the definition of the expression "loan" in' Section 2(i) of the Orissa Money lenders Act while, applying that Act to Mayurbhanj the law making authority, that is the Governor, did not himself make any adaptation in the definition clause, but by Section 8 of the Ordinance he conferred this power on the Court concerned. But at the same time with a view to prevent the Court from encroaching on the functions of the Legislature he limited this power by saying that it must be exercised only for the purpose of adaptation and that under the guise of interpretation the substance of the provisions of the statute should not be affected. But at the same time with a view to prevent the Court from encroaching on the functions of the Legislature he limited this power by saying that it must be exercised only for the purpose of adaptation and that under the guise of interpretation the substance of the provisions of the statute should not be affected. It is (sic) known that the power to 'adapt' is fundamentally different from the power to 'amend' and while exercising the power of adoption the authority concerned may, in appropriate cases, substitute for the new functionary described in the Act the previous functionary who exercised identical functions. The Government of Mayurbhanj was the predecessor in interest of the Government of Orissa in the State of Mayurbhanj and consequently when the definition of the expression 'loan' in Section 2(ii) of the Act expressly excludes a loan advanced by the State Government a law court is entitled to construe that definition clause by substituting "Government of Mayurbhanj" for "the State Government" in respect of loans advanced prior to the date of application of the Orissa Moneylenders Act to Mayurbanj. Such a construction does not in any way alter the substance of the statutory provisions. 7. Some reliance was also placed on Notification No. 4242 IIJ/137/58 Jud 1. dated the 9th July 1949, issued by the Government of Orissa in the Law Department, by which it was notified that the Mayurbhanj. State Bank was exempted from the operation of Sections 5 and 8 of the Orissa Moneylenders Act. The only effect of this notification was that the aforesaid Bank was exempted from getting itself registered as a moneylender and consequently the provisions of the Orissa Money lenders Act relating to registration did not apply to that Bank. But it was urged that by implication Government had accepted the position that the other provisions of the Act which do not apply exclusively to registered moneylenders would apply to loans advanced by the Mayurbhanj State Bank. Section 13 is not included in the aforesaid notification and hence it was urged that the implication arising out of that notifications is that even in respect of loans advanced by the Mayurbhanj State Bank the provisions of that Section would apply. Section 13 is not included in the aforesaid notification and hence it was urged that the implication arising out of that notifications is that even in respect of loans advanced by the Mayurbhanj State Bank the provisions of that Section would apply. This argument seems to assume that any inference that the State Government might have made (rightly or wrongly) regarding the applicability of that Act to loans advanced by the aforesaid Bank should be taken as binding on law courts. The untenability of this argument is apparent on the face of it. 8. For these reasons, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Mayurbhanj dated 16-7-1960, and hold that Section 13 of the Orissa-Money-lenders Act has no application to the suit loan. Misra, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Allowed