JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, J. - Notified Area Committee, Garhmukteshwar has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 23rd October, 1971 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut. 2. According to the allegation made in writ petition, the erstwhile Town Area Committee (now Notified Area Committee, Garhmukteshwar), decided to levy toll tax on head-load, behangi-loan, laden vehicles; and laden animals which entered its limits. With this end in view it framed certain rules which in due course were forwarded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (the prescribed authority under the Act), to the State Government. The State Government however, did not approve these Rules. It directed the petitioner to refrains the proposed Rules in the light of model Rules framed by it. After redrafting the Rules, the petitioner submitted them to the Prescribed Authority i.e., the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 23-2-1959 for taking necessary action. The Sub-Divisional Magistrated published these Rules inviting objections from the public. As no one objected to the redrafted Rules, the Prescribed Authority forwarded them to the State Government for necessary action. State Government then issued a notification dated 20th April, 1963 inviting objection) against the proposed Rules. When no objections were received, the State Government enforced the Rules as framed by the Town Area Committee and published the same in the Gazette dated 6th July, 1963. Thereafter, the petitioner passed a resolution on 26th March, 1964 stating that these Rules be enforced with effect from April 1, 1964. These Rules were again published in the U. P. Gazette dated May, 23, 1964. 3. There was some doubt whether the expression 'laden motor lorry', used in the Rules, covered a motor vehicle carrying passengers or not. Accordingly, a reference was made to the State Government, which in the month of September, 1970 advised the petitioner that loaded buses carrying passengers were also liable to be taxed as they were covered by the words 'laden motor lorry'. After this clarification by the State Government respondent Nos 2, 3 and 4 who are some of the permits holders plying State carriages on Bulandshahr-Siana-Garhmukteshwar route, made, an application to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate stating that the levy of toll-tax all the rate of Rs. 4/- per trip as mentioned in the Rules was excessive, and that the amount should be reduced to Rs. 4/- per trip as mentioned in the Rules was excessive, and that the amount should be reduced to Rs. 1.25 for the whole day for each stage carriage. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate rejected this application by his order dated October 21, 1970. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, as also 5 and 6 who were the other State carriage operators appeals before the Additional Commissioner, Meerut. In this appeal apart from contending that the levy of toll was excessive the operators further claimed that the levy itself was illegal. The petitioner filed objections contending that no appeal to the Additional Commissioner lay against the order dated 20th October, 1970 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. 4. The Additional Commissioner held that the appeal could be maintained under Section 18 of the Town Areas Act, and that the levy of toll-tax on stage carriages used by bus operators was totally unauthorised. According to him the Rules framed by the Notified Area Committee did not provide for imposition of toll-tax on passenger buses, specially when they did not pass through the limits of the Town Area. In the instant case buses of the appellants came only to Garhmukteshwar, where they stopped at the stand set up on land taken on rent from private individuals, and then returned to their destination (Bulandshahr). He, accordingly allowed the appeal and passed an order dated 23rd October, 1971 quashing the order levying Rs. 4/- per trip as toll-tax. 5. The Notified Area Committee has now come up before this Court and has impugned the order dated 23-10-1971 passed by the Additional Commissioner. It is contended that no appeal against the order dated 20th October, 1970, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hapur, lay to the Additional Commissioner. The respondents never raised the question that the toll-tax had not been validly levied by the Town Area Committee. In the circumstances, the Additional Commissioner, while exercising his appellate powers, could not hold that imposition of toll-tax was unauthorised and grant a relief which the bus operators never claimed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The order passed by the Additional Commissioner is, therefore, without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner also urged that the procedure prescribed for the levy of toll-tax had been fully complied with and the Additional Commissioner was wrong in holding that the levy was unauthorised. 6. The order passed by the Additional Commissioner is, therefore, without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner also urged that the procedure prescribed for the levy of toll-tax had been fully complied with and the Additional Commissioner was wrong in holding that the levy was unauthorised. 6. The petition has been contested by the bus operators. In the counter- affidavit filed on their behalf it is alleged that the Town Area Committee, Garhmukteshwar did not frame any proposal for the imposition of toll-tax within its limits. It neither specified the amount or rate leviable from any person liable for the toll-tax nor did it pass any resolution confirming the aforementioned proposal. They claim that provisions of Sec. 15-A(1) of the U.P. Town Areas Act having not been complied with, imposition of toll-tax is invalid. They also controvert that at the relevant time, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was the prescribed Authority. 7. In the rejoinder-affidavit it is asserted that necessary resolution was passed and the Government invited objections to the proposed Rules by publishing them in the Gazette dated April 20, 1963. After the Rules were published no objections were filed. The petitioner then passed a resolution dated 26th March, 1964 seeking to enforce these Rules under Section 15 Kha (iii). Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hapur, who was delegated the power of the District Magistrate issued an order dated 14th May, 1964 stating that in exercise of his powers under Sec. 15(3) of the U. P. Town Areas Act, he was publishing it for general information that the Area Committee has finally imposed toll-tax within its territorial limits with effect from 1st April, 1964 vide its resolution No. 2 dated 26th March, 1964. This order was published in U. P. Gazette dated 23rd March, 1964. 8. Sec. 15-A(1) provides that before a tax is imposed, the committee has to frame a proposal specifying the tax desired to be imposed, the amount of rate leviable from any person or class of persons liable or to be made liable for the tax. Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 15-A requires that in addition to the framing of the proposal mentioned above, the Town Area Committee has also to prepare a draft of the Rules which it desires the State Government to frame in respect of the matters referred to in Section 39 of the Act. According to sub-sec. Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 15-A requires that in addition to the framing of the proposal mentioned above, the Town Area Committee has also to prepare a draft of the Rules which it desires the State Government to frame in respect of the matters referred to in Section 39 of the Act. According to sub-sec. (3) the Committee has to publish in the prescribed manner, the proposal specifing the tax desired to be imposed and the amount of rate as also the draft Rules framed under sub-sec. (2). Sub-sec. (4) then provides that the inhabitants of the Town Area if they so like may file objections to the proposals under sub-sec. (1) in writing, which have to be considered by the Committee before finalising the proposals. The section makes a clear distinction between framing of a proposal under Sec. 15-A (1) specifying the tax, its rate and the persons or class of persons on whom it is liable, and framing of the Rules by the Town Area Committee under Sec. 15-A (2). There in no requirement that the inhabitants of the locality be invited to file objections against the draft rules prepared by the Town Area Committee. The inhabitants have been given a right to raise objections only against the proposal framed under Sec. 15-A (1) to impose the tax. Sub-sec. (5) requires that the proposals so settled an 1 the draft Rules have to be submitted to the Prescribed Authority, or if none is appointed to the District Magistrate. 9. Sec. 15-B requires the Prescribed Authority or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, to consider the proposal for the imposition of the tax viz., the resolution passed by the Town Area Committee under Sec. 15-A(1). After considering that resolution he may either sanction the same or reject it or sanction the same with or without modification. He is not required to consider the draft Rules submitted by the Town Area Committee. At this stage all that he is concerned with is whether the tax proposed by the Town Area Committee should be imposed or not and whether the amount or rate leviable from any person or class of persons liable or to be made liable for the tax, as determined by the Town Area Committee is apt or not. At this stage all that he is concerned with is whether the tax proposed by the Town Area Committee should be imposed or not and whether the amount or rate leviable from any person or class of persons liable or to be made liable for the tax, as determined by the Town Area Committee is apt or not. After he sanctions the proposal Sec. 15-B (2) requires that he has to forward a copy of the draft Rules framed by the Town Area to the State Government then actually frames the Rules and forwards the same to the District Magistrate or the Prescribed Authority as the case may be. The State Government for wards the rules framed by it to the District Magistrate or to the Prescribed Authority, the Town Area Committee has to pass a resolution directing the imposition of the tax with effect from the date to be specified by it. It then forwards a copy of the resolution to the Prescribed Authority or to the District Magistrate who is required to notify the same in the manner prescribed. It will thus be seen that before toll-tax can be validly levied and imposed by a Town Area Committee the resolution passed by the Town Area Committee under Sec. 15-A (1) has got to be sanctioned by the District Magistrate or the Prescribed Authority and before it becomes effective the Rules framed by the State Government in this connection have to be published in the prescribed manner by the District Magistrate or by the Prescribed Authority as provided in Sec. 15-B (3). 10. The expression 'prescribed authority' has been defined in Section 2 (6) (a), as meaning the authority notified as such by the State Government. It is nobody's case that the State Government has notified any authority as such for the purposes of sanctioning proposal or publishing the rule as required by Sec. 15-B (1) and (2). Case of the petitioner is that Section 4 of the Act enables a District Magistrate to delegate his functions under Sec. 15-B to an officer incharge of a Sub-division. In this case the District Magistrate, Meerut passed an order on 17th of May, 1930, copy of which has been filed as Annexure - F to the rejoinder affidavit. Case of the petitioner is that Section 4 of the Act enables a District Magistrate to delegate his functions under Sec. 15-B to an officer incharge of a Sub-division. In this case the District Magistrate, Meerut passed an order on 17th of May, 1930, copy of which has been filed as Annexure - F to the rejoinder affidavit. It runs as follows: "The power conferred upon the District Magistrate by United Provinces Act II of 1914 (as amended by U. P. Act No. 11 of 1929) or rules framed under this Act, other than his power under Sec. 39-A are hereby delegated to the Officer In charge of the Sub-Division in which Town Areas are situated." Accordingly, all the powers of the District Magistrate, including that under Sec. 15-B of the Town Areas Act, stands delegated to the Sub-Divisional Officer and he was fully competent to sanction the proposal for the imposition of toll as also to publish the Rules framed by the State Government after the Town Area Committee had decided to impose the tax with effect from 1st of April, 1964. 11. It appears that the petitioner has made a mistake in stating that the delegation order was passed on 17-5-1930. This order shows that the District Magistrate was delegating all the powers conferred upon him under the Act and the rules framed thereunder except that conferred upon him by Sec. 39-A. Now Sec. 39-A was introduced in the U. P. Town Areas Act by Section 21 of U. P. Act VII of 1933. It was, therefore, not possible to make a reference to Sec. 39-A in the year 1930. This order must have been passed either in the year 1933 or shortly thereafter. Sec. 15-A to 15-D were introduced in the Act by a Section 4 of U. P. Act XXIII of 1950, and it is not contended on behalf of the petitioner that the delegation order was passed after U. P. Act XXIII of 1950 came into force. I shall therefore proceed to deal with the case on the footing that the delegation order was passed by the District Magistrate, Meerut somewhere between 1933 and 1950, before the introduction of Sec. 15-A to 15-D in the Act. 12. I shall therefore proceed to deal with the case on the footing that the delegation order was passed by the District Magistrate, Meerut somewhere between 1933 and 1950, before the introduction of Sec. 15-A to 15-D in the Act. 12. Main question that, therefore, arises for consideration is whether the alleged delegation order passed by the District Magistrate, Meerut has the effect of delegating his powers under Sec. 15-B of the Town Areas Act to the Sub-Divisional Officer. 13. Sec. 4 of the U. P. Town Areas Act as it stood immediately after its amendment by Section 4 (1) of U. P. Act VII of 1933 ran thus:- "The District Magistrate may, by written order and subject to such conditions and restrictions as he may think fit impose, delegate all or any of the powers conferred on him by this Act or by rules framed under this Act, other than his power under Sec. 39-A to the Officer Incharge of the Sub-Division in which the Town Area is situated or to any other officer of the Revenue staff of the District above the rank of Tehsildar:" Provided that the District Magistrate may at any time revise an order passed by such officer under the powers so delegated." When the delegation order mentioned if in general words that the power conferred upon the District Magistrate by United Provinces Act II of 1914 (as amended by U. P. Act II of 1929) or rule framed therein was being delegated to the Officer Incharge of the Sub-Divisions, it obviously meant that the powers which the District Magistrate had at that time were being delegated. It could not possibly mean that District Magistrate was delegating a power which was not there with him at that time. After all there must be a power in existence before it can be delegated. Secs. 15-A to 15-D were introduced in the U. P. Town Areas Act, 1914, by Section 4 of the U. P. Act 23 of 1950. Accordingly, power under Sec. 15-B was not there when the delegation order relied upon by the petitioner was passed and no question of delegating that power could possibly arise. I am accordingly, of opinion that the delegation order relied upon by the petitioner does not have the effect of delegating the power of the District Magistrate under Secs. Accordingly, power under Sec. 15-B was not there when the delegation order relied upon by the petitioner was passed and no question of delegating that power could possibly arise. I am accordingly, of opinion that the delegation order relied upon by the petitioner does not have the effect of delegating the power of the District Magistrate under Secs. 15-B to 15-D of the Act to the officer Incharge of the Sub-Division. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner then relied on Section 24 of the U. P. General Clauses Act which runs thus:- "Where any enactment is repealed and re-enacted by the U. P. Act, with or without modification, then, unless it is otherwise expressly provided any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, form or bye-law made or issued under the repealed enactment shall, so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions reenacted continue in force and be deemed to have been made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted, unless and until it is superseded by any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, form or bye-law made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted." He contends that applying the principles underlying this section, it should be deemed that the delegation order dated 17th May, 1930 which was issued under the provisions of the U.P. Town Areas Act 1914 was in fact issued under the provisions of the Act as amended in the year 1950. Reading the delegation order in the light of the amended Act, it becomes obvious that under the order all the powers of the District Magistrate excepting that under Sec. 39-A stand delegated tot the Incharge of the Sub-Division. It necessarily follows that the power of the District Magistrate under Sec. 15-B also stand delegated. 15. I am unable to accept this submission. In the first place Section 24 of the U. P. General Clauses Act comes into play only in cases where a particular enactment is repealed and re-enacted with or without modification, by a U. P. Act. In the instant case, insertion of altogether new provisions by way of Secs. 15-A to 15-D in the U.P. Town Areas Act, 1814 by Section 4 of the U. P. Act XXIII of 1950 does not amount to repeal and re-enactment of any of its provisions. In the circumstances, the principles underlying Section 24 of the General Clauses Act cannot apply to the facts of this case. 15-A to 15-D in the U.P. Town Areas Act, 1814 by Section 4 of the U. P. Act XXIII of 1950 does not amount to repeal and re-enactment of any of its provisions. In the circumstances, the principles underlying Section 24 of the General Clauses Act cannot apply to the facts of this case. Normally, when an enactment, is repealed, the appointments, notifications, orders etc. made under that enactment also fall as there remains no authority to support them. In a case where an enactment has been repealed and the same has been re-enacted with or without modification then Section 24 contemplates that those appointments notifications orders etc. shall continue to be in force, deriving their authority from the re-enacted provisions instead of the repealed enactment. This section was not intended to widen the scope and ambit of appointment, notification, order, etc. made under the repealed enactment. The provisions of Section 24 of the General Clauses Act cannot be interpreted to mean that what was not included in an order passed under the repealed enactment gets included in it when it starts receiving support for its existence under the re-enacted provision. In my opinion, notwithstanding the wide and general words used in the delegation order a power which did not exist at the time of delegation and which in fact was not delegated cannot stand delegated by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 24 of the U. P. General Clauses Act. The Sub-Divisional Officer, therefore, had no authority either to sanction the proposal for the imposition of the toll-tax by the petitioner or to publish the Rules framed by the State Government as provided in Sec. 15-B (3) of the Act. In the absence of these two vital staps, it cannot be said that the toll-tax, had been validly imposed and levied by the petitioner Town Area & Committee. Accordthgly, it has no jurisdiction to realise the same from respondent Nos. 3 to 6. 16. Lerned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that this Court should not go into the question whether in this case the toll-tax was validly levied. According to him, the only scope of the writ petition is whether or not the Additional Commissioner, Meerut had the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by respondents 3 to 6 and in case it is found that the appeal filed by respondent Nos. According to him, the only scope of the writ petition is whether or not the Additional Commissioner, Meerut had the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by respondents 3 to 6 and in case it is found that the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 3 to 6 was not maintainable the present writ petition must be allowed and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner be quashed. There appears to be force in the contention raised by counsel for the petition that neither the application moved by respondent Nos. 3 to 6 before the Sub-Divisional Officer for the reduction of the amount of toll-tax from Rs. 4/- per trip to Rs. 1.25 per day on the vehicles belonging to them, nor the appeal filed by them be fore the Additional Commissioner was maintainable. As mentioned above, the scheme envisaged by the Act for the imposition of the tax by a Town Area Committee is that it frames proposal for imposing tax and also drafts the Rules which it wants the State Government to frame under the U. P. Town Areas Act. Objections are invited only as against the proposal to impose tax and the rate at which it is proposed to be levied. The Act does; not require that any objection is to be entertained against the draft Rules. The proposal is to be sanctioned by the District Magistrate and after it is so sanctioned the District Magistrate forwards the draft Rules to the State Government. After the State Government has framed the Rules they are sent back to the District Magistrate. The tax is imposed by means of resolution passed by the Town Area Committee. It becomes recoverable under the provisions of the rules framed by the State Government. Once the Rules have been framed and notified by the District Magistrate he has no authority to interfere with rate of tax mentioned in the Rules. Any such change can be effected only by following the procedure for imposition of toll-tax as provided in Sec. 15-C of the Town Areas Act. In the circumstances it was not open to the Sub-Divisional Officer to have varied the tax as prayed for by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 after the same had been imposed and levied. Any such change can be effected only by following the procedure for imposition of toll-tax as provided in Sec. 15-C of the Town Areas Act. In the circumstances it was not open to the Sub-Divisional Officer to have varied the tax as prayed for by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 after the same had been imposed and levied. In case the plea raised by the bus operators appealed to the District Magistrate (Sub-Divisional Officer) he could have initiated proceedings for the alteration of the tax. But his refusal to do so could not amount to an order which has been made appealable to the Commissioner under any provision of the U. P. Town Areas Act. Sec. 18 of the U. P. Town Areas Act, on which reliance has been placed by the bus operators provides for an appeal against an assessment or levy of tax to the District Magistrate. This section obviously does not provide for an appeal against an order refusing to take proceedings for the alteration of the tax under Sec. 15-C of the Act. 17. Although, I am of opinion that the proceedings initiated by the bus operators were misconceived still in view of the fact that the imposition of the tax is patently illegal, I do not think that this Court should exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and interfere with the impugned order so as to restore a patently illegal position. Considering the circumstances of this case, I am of opinion that this is not a fit case in which this Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. In view of the special circumstances of this case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.