( 1 ) THE appellants are either weavers of silk, twisters or weavers- cum-twisters, weavers or traders in silk yarn. The Karnataka Silk worm, Seed and Cocoon (Regulation of Production, Supply and distribution) Act, 1959 was amended by Karnataka Act 33 of 1979 and Karnataka Act 12 of 1980. The amending Acts and the Rules were challenged before this Court. This Court by its order dated 9th september 1980 upheld the validity of the amending Acts and quashed Rule 17-1 of the Karnataka Silk Worm Seed, Cocoon (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) (Amendment) rules, 1979. ( 2 ) RULE 17-1 reads as follows:"rule 17-1: Levy of Market fee:- (a) Realer who seels Silk Yarn (b) Realer who is also a twister who sells silk yarn and (c) Traders who purchases silk yarn in a silk exchange shall pay a market fee at the rate of 2% of the value as the case may be. " ( 3 ) AFTER this Rule was struck down, it came to be validated by Section 5 of the Karnataka Act No. 6 of 1981. The validating provision reads as under:"5. Validation of Rule 17-1 of the Karnataka Silk Worm Seed cocoon and Silk Yarn (Regulation of Production, Supply, distribution and Sale) Rules, 1960 etc. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any decree, order, or Judgment of any Court or other authority or the principal Act, rule 17-1 of the Karnataka Silk Worm Seed, Cocoon and Silk yarn (Regulation of Production, Supply, Distribution and Sale) rules, 1960 made in Notification No. CI. 26 SLW 80, dated 8th december, 1980 shall be deemed to have been made and to have the force of law from the 20th day of December, 1979. 26 SLW 80, dated 8th december, 1980 shall be deemed to have been made and to have the force of law from the 20th day of December, 1979. (2) Levy and collection of any market fee made under the principal Act and the Rules made thereunder before the commencement of this Act by the Market Officer of a cocoon market or by the Silk Market Officer of a silk exchange shall, notwitstanding anything contained in any decree, order or judgment of any Court or other authority be deemed to have been validly made and shall have effect for all purposes as if it had been made under the provisions of the Principal Act and the rules made thereunder as amended by this Act and as if the said provisions were in force at all relevant times and accordingly no suit or other legal proceedings shall be entertained or continued in any Court or Tribunal on the ground that such levy and collection was made in pursuance of a provisions of the Act or rules which was not in force at the relevant time. "thereafter, the appellants challenged the validity of Section 5 stating that there is no provision in the Act to frame a Rule in a retrospective fashion. In other words, according to them the Rule being made by virtue of the delegated power it cannot have retrospective operation. The learned single Judge discountenanced this contention holding that what was done was not a mere retrospective Rule making, but on the contrary it is a validation of that Rule which rested under the delegated authority by incorporating a legislative provision. In support of this conclusion, the learned Judge relied on the Decisions in krishnachandra vs UNION OF INDIA and JAORA SUGAR mills vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH. Accordingly, he dismissed the Writ Petitions. ( 4 ) IN these Appeals the same contention is reiterated that a Rule being a subordinate legislation cannot be retrospective in character. The fallacy underlying this argument is, in overlooking the fact what remained as a Rule originally has now been incorporated by a legislative provision under Section 5 which we have already extracted. The object of validation is that it is a curative legislation. The fallacy underlying this argument is, in overlooking the fact what remained as a Rule originally has now been incorporated by a legislative provision under Section 5 which we have already extracted. The object of validation is that it is a curative legislation. In testing the correctness of the validating provision, all that is required to be noted is whether the three following conditions as adumbrated by the supreme Court in I. N. SAKSENA vs STATE OF M. P. are satisfied: "22. While, in view of this distinction between legislative and judicial functions, the legislature cannot by a bare declaration, without more directly overrule, reverse or override a judicial decision, it may, at any time in exercise of the plenary powers conferred on it by Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution render a judicial decision ineffective by enacting a valid law on a topic within its legislative field fundamentally altering or changing with retrospective, curative or neutralising effect the conditions on which such decision is based. As pointed out by Ray C. J. in indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain, (1975) SCC Supp 1 = ( AIR 1975 SC 2299 ) the rendering ineffective of Judgments or orders of competent Courts and tribunals by changing their basis by legislative enactment is a well known pattern of all validating acts. Such validating legislation which removes the causes for ineffectiveness or invalidity of actions or proceedings is not an encroachment on judicial power. 23. In Hari Singh vs Military Estate Officer (1973) 1 SCR 515 = ( AIR 1972 SC 2205 ) a Bench of seven learned Judges of this court laid down that the validity of a validating law is to be judged by two tests. Firstly, whether the legislature possesses competence over the subject-matter and, secondly, whether by validation the legislature has removed the defect which the courts had found in the previous law. To these we may add a third: Whether it is consistent with the provisions of Part III of the constitution. " where, therefore, the basis of the earlier defect namely the retrospectivity of a subordinate legislation is cured by incorporating a legislative provision, no valid objection could be taken to the same. Further it conforms to those three tests which are laid down at paragraphs 22 and 23 of the above extract of the Supreme Court. " where, therefore, the basis of the earlier defect namely the retrospectivity of a subordinate legislation is cured by incorporating a legislative provision, no valid objection could be taken to the same. Further it conforms to those three tests which are laid down at paragraphs 22 and 23 of the above extract of the Supreme Court. ( 5 ) THERE are no merits in the appeals. The Writ Appeals stand dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .