K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) THE Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980 (Karnataka Ordinance no. 13 of 1980), promulgated by the Governor of Karnataka on November 11, 1980, was not replaced by an enactment. Consequently, it held the field only for a period of six months. That period falls within the assessment year 1980-81. Among several amendments, the Ordinance also inserted the following provision in the Schedule to the principal Act : "the amount of agricultural income-tax computed in accordance with the preceding provisions of this part shall be increased by a surcharge calculated at the rate of ten per cent. of such agricultural income-tax". Accordingly, by taking into consideration the aforesaid provision, the petitioner has been assessed to agricultural income-tax for the year 1980-81 by levying surcharge as per the aforesaid provision by the assessment order dated April 13, 1982, passed by the Agricultural income-tax Officer, I Circle, Chickmagalur, produced as annexure-A. Pursuant to the assessment, recovery proceedings have also been commenced and a notice dated January 3, 1986, as per annexure B has been issued to the petitioner to pay the tax and surcharge. ( 2 ) IT is at this stage that the petitioner has come forward with this petition with the following prayers : (a) Issue a writ of certiorari or a direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned notice No. 1847/80-81 of 539 dated January 3, 1986, issued by the respondent for the assessment year 1980-81. (b) Issue a writ of prohibition or a direction in the nature of writ of prohibition restraining the respondent from proceeding pursuant to the notice dated January 3, 1986. The contention of the petitioner is that on the date the assessment order was passed, the Ordinance No. 13 of 1980 which inserted the aforesaid provision in Part I of the Schedule was not in force and, therefore, the assessing authority was not justified in imposing he surcharge "at the rate of ten per cent. of such agricultural income-tax". No doubt, the Ordinance No. 13 of 1980 has not been replaced by an enactment passed by the Legislature. Therefore, it had ceased to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the reassembly of the Legislature. During the period it was in force, it was required to be given full effect and everyone concerned was required to make assessment in according with that. Therefore, it had ceased to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the reassembly of the Legislature. During the period it was in force, it was required to be given full effect and everyone concerned was required to make assessment in according with that. ( 3 ) THOUGH the duration of the Ordinance is limited to the period laid down in clause 2 (a) of article 213 of the Constitution, its effect will endure even after the expiry of the Ordinance, In other words, to matters governed by or affected by the Ordinance, even if they are considered after the lapse of the Ordinance, the Ordinance will have to be applied. ( 4 ) THEREFORE, when the authority made the assessment of the assessment year 1980-81, it was required to take into consideration the Ordinance. The mere fact that the assessment order was passed subsequent to the lapse of the Ordinance did not enable the assessee to avoid the liability of surcharge imposed by the Ordinance for the period of the assessment in question. That being so, the respondent was justified in imposing the surcharge. ( 5 ) NO other contention is urged. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I do not see any good ground to issue rule nis. Petition is accordingly rejected. ( 7 ) SRI H. L. Dattu, learned High Court Government Pleader, is permitted to file his memo of appearance for the respondent in six weeks.