JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By this Writ Petition the petitioner has challenged the notification issued by the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 2 as well as the notification have been challenged on the ground that they are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that no guidelines have been provided for the State Government in connection with issuance of notification under sub-section (3) and the power conferred on the State Government is unbridled and uncanalised. 3. A perusal of sub-section (3) would show that the power can be exercised by the State Government only when premises are owned by any educationals, religious or charitable institution, the whole of the income derived from which is utilised for the purpose the institution. Notification under sub-section (3) can be issued by the State Government only in relation to the educational, religious and charitable institutions and further guidelines which have been provided are that these institutions must utilise their income wholly for the purpose of the institution, and the power cannot be exercised by the State Government where such a situation does not exist. Therefore, it cannot be said that no guidelines under sub-section (3) of Section 2 of Act have been provided. 4. It is next urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notification has been issued by the State Government excluding all Wakfs registered under the Wakfs Act from the operation of the provisions of the Act. The notification is bad, inasmuch as the power has been exercised in favour of a particular religion and so it is discriminatory. Suffice it to say that so far the provision of sub-section (3) is concerned, power can be exercised with respect to all religious institutions and on the ground of religion no discrimination is provided in the aforesaid provision. Institutions of the nature as specified in sub-section (3) if brought to the notice of the State Government or come to the notice of the State Government, the State Government can exercise its power under sub-section (3). Institutions of the nature as specified in sub-section (3) if brought to the notice of the State Government or come to the notice of the State Government, the State Government can exercise its power under sub-section (3). Simply because the power has been exercised by the State Government in relation of Wakfs, it cannot be said that exercise of power was in any way discriminatory, as Wakfs are religious and charitable institutions and their income is used for their own purpose, so exercise of power is for the purpose as provided under sub-section (3) of Section 2. 5. It is also urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no material with the State Government on the basis of which it can be said that the State Government exercised its powers legitimately and properly. It may be stated that under sub-section (3) what is provided is that if the State Government is satisfied that it is in the public interest to issue notification for the institutions specified therein notifications can be issued. Notification Annexure 8 records the satisfaction of the State Government that the issuance of the notification is in the public interest. When such as a satisfaction vests in the body like State Government, it cannot be taken that the satisfaction was not based on any material. It is true that the aforesaid Act has been enacted for the benefit of the tenants, but simultaneously the legislatures had in view certain properties and taking into consideration the interest of those properties, the provisions of the Act can be excluded from operation in respect of those properties. It is with that end in view that the provisions are embodied in sub-section (2) and sub-section (3). To such premises which are covered under sub-section (2)(3), the provisions of the Rent Control Act will not apply to either wholly or partially as the case may be. 6. No other arguments have been advanced before me. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition has no force and the same is dismissed summarily.Petition dismissed. *******