N. D. OJHA, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of M. P. Not. 1472/86,1473/86, 1474/86, and 994/85. ( 2 ) THESE 5 writ petitions challenge the constitutional validity of Notification no. F-5-13/83/1/15, dated 23-1-1984, whereby in exercise of the power conferred by Section 95 read with sub-section (1) of Section 58 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), certain amendments were made in Rule 50-A of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). By this amendment, the charges payable by the Co-operative Societies for audit, have been increased. Several pkas have been raised ia support of the challenge to the aforesaid amendment; but since after hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the-opinion that these writ petitions deserve to be allowed on a short point, we do not find it. necessary to consider the remaining pleas. ( 3 ) THE ground on which these writ petitions deserve to be allowed is that the amended Rules have not bees laid on the table of the legislature as content plated by sub-section (3) of Section 95 of the Act. In this connection it may be noticed that it is this Section 95 which confers power on the State to make rules. Sub-section (1) of Section 95 provides that the Government may, for the whole or any part of the State and for any Society or class cf Societies, make rules for the conduct and regulation of the business of such Society or class of societies and for carrying out all or any of the purposes of this Act. Sub-section (2) contemplates that in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the toregoing power, such rules may provide for the matters enumerated therein under various clauses. ( 4 ) CLAUSE (aa) reads as hereunder :"prescribe the accounts and books to be kept by a Society and provide for the audit of such accounts and the charges, if any, to be made for such audit, and for the periodical publication of a balance sheet showing the assets and liabilities of a Society. "it is in exercise of the power conferred by this clause (aa) that inter alia provision was made in the rules for charges to be paid for purposes of audit. "it is in exercise of the power conferred by this clause (aa) that inter alia provision was made in the rules for charges to be paid for purposes of audit. The relevant rule in this behalf is Rule 50-A which has been amended by the impugned notification. Sub-section (3) of Section 95 provides that all rules made under this Act shall be laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly. Oae oi the pleas raised in the writ petition was that this mandatory requirement contained in sub-section (3) of Section 95 of laying the amended rules on the table ot the Legislative Assembly had not been complied with. ( 5 ) IN the return, it has not been specifically stated that the amended rules were laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly and if so, on what date. The case was taken up for hearing on an earlier date. We adjourned the hearing to enable learned counsel appearing for the respondents to make sure as to whether the amended rules had been laid on the table of the Legislative assembly ot not. When the case was taken up yesterday again, learned counsel appealing for the respondents made a candid statement that on enquiry, it has not been tound that the amended rules had been laid on the table of the legislative Assembly. Consequently, we have to proceed on the basis that the amended rules framed by the impugned notification, had not been laid on the (able oi the Legislative Assembly as contemplated by sub-action (3) of Section 95 ot tne Act. ( 6 ) SECTION 21 of the M. P. General Clauses Act, 1957, reads as hereunder :"21. Power to make, to include power to add, to amend, vary or rescind orders etc. Where, by any Madhya Pradesh Act, a power to issue notifications, orders, rules or bye-lawa is conferred, then that power includes a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to like sanctions and conditions, if any, to add, to amend, vary or rescind any notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws, so issued. Where, by any Madhya Pradesh Act, a power to issue notifications, orders, rules or bye-lawa is conferred, then that power includes a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to like sanctions and conditions, if any, to add, to amend, vary or rescind any notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws, so issued. "section 24-A, on the other hand, which was inserted by the M. P. , Act, No. 6 of 1960, is as follows :"24-A. Laying of rules on table on Assembly.-Where in an) Madhya pradesh Act, it is directed that a rule shall be laid on the table of the legislative Assembly, then such rule shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made before the Legislative Assembly for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session in which the said period expires, the Legislative Assembly adopts a resolution that such a rule should not be made, or that any modification be made therein, the rule shall thereafter be of no effect or have effect only in the modified form as the case may be : provided that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity to anything previously done under that rule. " ( 7 ) IN view of the provision contained in Section 21 of the M. P. General clauses Act, it is apparent that even though a power to add, amend, vary or rescind any notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws, vests in the rule making authority, such power is exercisable in the like manner and subject to like sanctions and conditions, if any. Sub-section (3) of Section 95 of the Act contains a condition in regard to framing of rules under the said section. Consequently any amendment that was to be made in the rules framed under section 95, had to be laid on the tabla of the Legislative Assembly, the same being a condition prescribed for framing of the rules. Sub-section (3) of Section 95 of the Act contains a condition in regard to framing of rules under the said section. Consequently any amendment that was to be made in the rules framed under section 95, had to be laid on the tabla of the Legislative Assembly, the same being a condition prescribed for framing of the rules. The language of Section 21 of the M. P. General Clauses Act itself is very clear on the point, bat if for the interpretation made above, any authority were needed, reference may be made to Kamlaprasad Khetan and another v. Union of India, [ air 1957 sc 676 ] and Mahendralal Jaini v. State of U. P. and others, [air 1963 SO 1019]. ( 8 ) THE next question which falls for consideration is with regard to the effect of non-compliance with the mandatory requirement contained in subsection (3)of Section 95 of the Act. In D. S. Garewal v. The State of Punjab and another, [ air 1959 SC 512 ], with reference to Sections 3 and 4 of the All india Services Act, 1951, a question was raised that the delegation of rule making power was excessive. While repelling this submission, reliance was placed on sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act which as it then stood read as hereunder:"all rules made under this section shall be laid for not less than fourteen days before Parliament as soon as possible after they are made and shall be subject to such modifications, whether by way of repeal or amendment, as Parliament may make on a motion made during the session in which they are so laid. "it was held :"further by Section 3, the Central Government was given the power to frame rules in future which may have the effect of adding to, altering varying or amending the rules accepted under Section 4 as binding. Seeing that the rules would govern the All-India Services common to the Central Government and the State Government, provision was made by Section 3 that rules should be framed only after consulting the State Governments. Seeing that the rules would govern the All-India Services common to the Central Government and the State Government, provision was made by Section 3 that rules should be framed only after consulting the State Governments. At the same time, Parliament took care to see that these rules were laid on the table of Parliament for fourteen days before they were to come into force and they were subject to modification, whether by way of repeal or amendment on a motion made by Parliament during the session in which they are so laid. This makes it perfectly clear that Parliament has, in no way, abdicated its authority, but is keeping strict vigilance and control over its delegate. Therefore, reading Section 4 along with Section 3 (2) of the Act, it cannot be said in the special circumstances of this case that there was excessive delegation to the Central Government by Section 3 (1 ). " (Emphasis supplied ). ( 9 ) FROM the language of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the All India services Act, 1951 quoted above, it would be seen that it nowhere mentions that the rule shall not come into force till it has been laid before the Parliament for not less than 14 days. However, the said sub-section was interpreted by the supreme Court to mean that before the Rules were to come into force, they had to be laid on the table of Parliame nt for 14 days. Sub-section (3) of Section 95 of the Act casts a duty on the State Government only to lay the rules on the table of the Legislative Assembly. It does not say that the rules so laid shall not come into force till the Legislature had approved them. Consequently, in so far as the State Government is concerned, it would be deemed to have discharged its duty in the matter of framing of the rules contemplated by section 95 of the Act if after framing such rules, the rules are laid by it on the table of the Legislative Assembly. ( 10 ) THE manner in which the rules are to be dealt with after they have been laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly, is to be found in Section 24-A of the M. P. General Clauses Act. ( 10 ) THE manner in which the rules are to be dealt with after they have been laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly, is to be found in Section 24-A of the M. P. General Clauses Act. On reading the provisions of subsection (3)of Section 95 of the Act, Sections 21 and 24-A of the M. P. General clauses Act in juxtaposition in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of D, S. Garewal (supra) we are of opinion that the legal position which emerges, can be stated thus : in order to enforce the rules, the State Government has to frame them in exercise of the power conferred on it by sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 95 of the Act. The rules are thereafter to be laid by the State Government on the table of the Legislative Assembly. These requirements shall, in view of Section 21 of the M. P. General Clauses Act, apply even to an amendment of the rule. Once the State Government has complied with these requirements, namely it has framed the rules and has laid them on the table of the Legislative Assembly, the rules come into force. The rules so framed which have come into force as soon as they have been laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly, shall continue to be in force till the Legislative Assembly 'adopts a resolution that such a rule should not be made or that any modification be made therein'. If any such resolution is adopted, then 'the rules shall thereafter, be of no effect or have effect only in the modified form, as the case may be'. In view of the proviso to section 24-A, however, any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule. ( 11 ) SINCE in the instant case, even though in exercise of the power conferred on it by clause (aa) of sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act, the impugned amendment rules have been framed by the State Government, it has failed to comply with the condition imposed by sub-section (3) of Section 95 of the Act, inasmuch as the amended rules have not been laid by it on the table of the legislative Assembly. As a consequence thereof, the rules cannot be taken to have come into force so far and this being so, the respondents cannot enforce the amended rules against the petitioners of these writ petitions. ( 12 ) IN the result, these writ petitions succeed and are allowed to the extent that the respondents are directed not to enforce the amended rules against the petitioners till they have been laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly as contemplated by sub-section (3) of Section 95 of the Act. If any charges or audit fees in pursuance of the impugned notification have been realised from the petitioners of these writ petitions in excess of the charges/audit fees payable by them under-the unamended rules, the same shall be refunded to the petitioners within two months. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Outstanding amount of security be refunded to the petitioners of each of these writ petitions. Petitions allowed. .