( 1 ) THE petitioner is a resident of Belgaum City. After the expiry of the terms of the, members of the Municipal Council of Belgaum, an Administrator was appointed by the State Govt under C1 (C) of sub-sec (l) of S. 315 of the Karnatakta Municipalitties Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the act) to administer the affairs of the Municipal Council, for a period of six months from 1st March, 1974 or till the Municipal Council was reconstituted whichever was earlier, by its order dt. 27-2-1974. On 24th April 1974, the state Grovt, in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-sec (S) of S. 315 of the Act, appointed respondents 2 to 21 as membars of the Advisory Council to advise and to assist the Administrator in exercise of the powers and to perform and discharge the duties and functions conferred or imposed on him under the Act. ( 2 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ quashing the orders of the State Govt dt. 24-4-1974 constituting the Advisory council and directing respondents 2 to 21 not to function as members of the Advisory Council on th ground that their appointment is illegal. The relief prayed for by the petitioner is primarily based on the contrition that sub-sec (3) of S. 315 of the Act is uncontitutional. The writ petition is contested by the respondents. The principal contention urged in support of the writ petition is that gub-sec (3) of S. 314 suffers from the vice of excessive delegation. In other words, it is contended that the State Legislature had conferred unguided power on the State Govt and had abdicated its essential legislative powers in enacting sub-sec (3) of S. 315 of the Act. Sub-sec (3) of S. 315 of the Act reads as follows : (3) The State Govt may, if it thinks fit, appoint an advisory council to advise and assist the administrator appointed under sub-sec (1) in the exercise of the powers and the performance and discharge of they duties and functions conferred or imposed on him under this Act or any other law. The members of the advisory council shall hold office during the pleasure of the State; Government. " ( 3 ) THE Administrator is appointed for a, Municipal Council when an elected municipal Council is not functioning. The members of the advisory council shall hold office during the pleasure of the State; Government. " ( 3 ) THE Administrator is appointed for a, Municipal Council when an elected municipal Council is not functioning. The Administrator is empowered by sub-sec (2) of S. 315 to exercise all the powers exercisable by a Municipal council, its committees, the President and Vice-President under the Act or ary other law. The) Advisory Council is appointed under sub-sec (3) of s. 315 of the Act only to advise the Administrator. The advice tendered by the Advisory Council is not stated to be binding on the Administrator. It was argued by Sri B. V. Krishnaswamy Rao, learned Counsil for the petitioner that in the absence of any guidelines given by the Statute itself, regarding the qualification of persons who could bet appointed as members of the Advisory Council, sub-sec (3) of S. 315 should be struck down on the ground of exclussive delegation. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Devi Das Gopal Krishnan v State of Punjab ,. AIR. 1967 SC. 1895. It has to be observed here that the decision relied by the learned Counsel has no bearing on the case on hand. In that case, the Supreme Court was considering the validity of a provision in the punjab General Sales Tax Act which conferred unlimited power on the state Government to determine the rate at which sales tax had to be paid by the assessees The present case is not one in which the State Govt is entrusted with the power to detormine the rate of tax, in that very decision, reference is made to an earlier decision of the Supreme court in Corpn of Calcutta v. Liberty Cinema, AIR. 1965 SC. 1107, in which" power of the Municipal Corporation to levy a licence fee in resp'ct of a Cinema was upheld by the Supreme Court although there was no express restriction on the power of the, Municipality to levy the fee or a tax on the ground that there was enough guidance in the various provisions of the Calcutta municipal Act 1951 with regard to the rate of fee or tax leviable on cinema shows. ( 4 ) THE true principle which should govern the question whether there is excessive delegation by the legislature is explained by the Supreme Court in Delhi Municipality v. BCS and W Mills ,air, 1968 SC, 1232, at para 28 as follows : a review of these authorities therefore leads to the conclusion that so far as this Court is concerned the principle is well established that essential legislative function consists of the determination of the legislative policy and its formulation as a binding rule of conduct and cannot be delegated by the legislature. Nor is there any unlimited right of delegation inherent in the legislatve power itself. This is not warranted by the provisions of the Constn. The legislature must retain in its own hands the essential legislative functions and what can be delegated is the task of subordinate legislation necessary for implementing the purposes and objects of the Act. Where the legislative policy is enunciated with sufficient clearness or a standard is laid down, the courts should not interfere. What guidance should be given and to what extent and whether guidance has been given in a particular case at all depends on a consideration of the provisions of the particular Act with which the Court has to deal including its preamble. Further it appears to us that the nature of the body to which delegation is made is also a factor to be taken into consideration in determining whether there is sufficient guidance in the matter of delegation. " ( 5 ) WHILE considering whether a statutory provision is constitutional or not, the Court has to bear in mind that a statute carries with it the presumption of constitutionality. It must also be assumed that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of the people and requirements of a given situation. The Court has to find out from the provisions of the statute whether there are any guidelines at all regarding the exercise of the power delegated by the impugned provision to another authority. The act has been passed in order to provide for the, management of Municipal affairs in towns and cities in the State of Karnataka. The obligatory functions and the discretionary functions of the Municipal Council which are to be discharged by the Municipal Council or by the Administrator are found in Ss. 87 and 91 of the Act. The act has been passed in order to provide for the, management of Municipal affairs in towns and cities in the State of Karnataka. The obligatory functions and the discretionary functions of the Municipal Council which are to be discharged by the Municipal Council or by the Administrator are found in Ss. 87 and 91 of the Act. The power to appoint Advisory Council is conferred on as high an authority as the State Govt which ordinarily is not expected to act arbitrarily and which should be presumed to know the qualifications which members of an Advisory Council should possess. If sub-sec (3) of S. 315 is considered in this back-ground, it would be clear that there, are enough guidelines given by the Statute to the State Govt as to the qualifications of the persons to be appointed as members of the advisory Council. ( 6 ) A busy and over burdened legislature, cannot be expected to provide for every detail. In modern times quite a lot of things are left by the legislatures to other instrumentalities. The power to make appointments, the rule making power, the, " appointed day " clauses, the power to extend the opertion of Statutes and granting of exemptions etc. , are all left to other authorities without exposing the Acts to the criticism based on the theory of excessive delegation. In the circumstances of this case, the contention that sub-sec (3) of S. 315 suffers from the vice of excessive delegation has got to be repelled. Hence the above contention is rejected. ( 7 ) IT is next argued by Sri B. V. Krisnaswamy Rao, that although sub- sec (3) of S. 315 is valid, the order made by the State Govt appointing the advisors has to bq struck down as it does not fulfil the object of the Statute. It is argued that as some of the respondents have been defeated at an earlier election and the; names of some others were not found in the voters list, they were not eligible to be appointed as advisors. It is, however, not disputed that respondents 2 to 21 are residents of Belgaum. The grounds urged against the nomination of respondents 2 to 21 to the Advisory Council are not. sufficient to hold that order of the State Govt is arbitrary. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .