Honble M.B. SHARNA, J.—A Division Bench expressed an opinion that the following question should be finally settled by a larger Bench of this Court and therefore Honble Chief Justice constituted this larger Bench for the decision of the question. The question referred to the larger Bench reads as under: "Whether phrase rules used in rule 55 (XI) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, as contained in the notification dated April 27, 1989 should receive a narrow construction so as to exclude all other statutory provisions e.g. Ordinances, Regulations, Orders, or Bye-laws framed under some Act or should it receive a wider meaning so as to include such statutory provisions." Chapter-V of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 (for short, the Rules) lays down the jurisdiction of the Judges to decide cases sitting either alone or in Division Bench. The aforesaid Chapter has undergone changes from time to time and in 1988 an amendment was made conferring jurisdiction on a Division Bench to hear all types of Writ Petitions. Yet again in the year 1989 an amendment was made vide Notification No. 2/S.R.O/89 dated April 27, 1989 by which clause (XI) has been inserted after clause (X), which reads as under:- "The writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India except the writ petitions challenging the vires of the provisions of any Act or rules made thereunder and for writs against the orders of the Board of Revenue and the Rajasthan State Service Appellate Tribunal." It will appear from the above extracted clause (XI) of rule 55 of the Rules that generally the Judges sitting singly will have jurisdiction to decide the writ petitions under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and an exception has been made so far as writ petitions in which challenge to the vires of the provisions of any Act or Rules made thereunder is made and the writ petitions against the orders of the Board of Revenue and the Rajasthan State Services Appellate Tribunal. A Division Bench of the Court in the case of (1) M/s Kumar Swastik Enterprises Vs. A Division Bench of the Court in the case of (1) M/s Kumar Swastik Enterprises Vs. Union of India took a view that the challenge involved to the validity of Cement (Quality Control) Order, 1962, made under Sec. 3 of the Essential Cornmodities Act, 1955 (for short, the EC Act) cannot be entertained by a Division Bench and Division Bench has no jurisdiction because the said Order is not a rule made under any Act. The Division Bench said- "In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking to challenge the validity of Cement (Quality Control) Order, 1962, as amended in the year 1983. The said order is in the nature of statutory order issued by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It is not a rule made under the provisions of the said Act. The writ petition can, therefore, be heard by the Single Bench. It may be listed before the Single Bench. A copy of this order de given to the Stamp Reporter for his further guidance." The Division Bench in the aforesaid case gave narrow construction to the phrase rule as used in the notification dated April 27, 1989 by which clause (XI) in rule 55 was inserted. Following the aforesaid Division Bench case various Single Benches of this Court also took the same view and they were of the opinion that they were bound by the decision of the Division Bench. In the case of (2) Raghuvar India Ltd. Jaipur and another V. The Assistant District Supply Officer dealing with the Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing & Control) Order, 1980, placing reliance on the case of M/s Kumar Swastik Enterpises (supra) one of us (Israni, J) to which he was also a party, repelled the contention that the writ petition challenging the vires of Order made under Sec. 3 of the Act can be entertained only by a Division Bench and held that the Single Bench has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition because an order made under Sec. 3 of the EC Act is not a rule made under any provisions of the Act. The Division Bench in the order of reference has said that in its view the in tention to insert clause(Xl) in rule 55 of the Rules by the amendment dated April 27, 1989 was to make the provisions for hearing of cases involving validity to the statutory provisions by the Division Bench so that such questions are ordinarily decided once for all by a Division Bench. It also said that a narrow interpretation to the term rule would exclude the jurisdiction of the Division Bench from hearing the writ petitions involving challenge to the various statutory provisions like Regulations, Ordinances or Orders. The Devision Bench therefore disagreeing with the narrow interpretation placed by a Division Bench of this court in the aforesaid case of M/s Kumar Swastik Enterprises, on the term rule expressed a view that the term rule should be given wider interpretation so as to include all types of statutory instruments, which may be described as Regulations, Bye-laws and Ordinances if such a provision has the force of law and validity of the same is under challenge and said that in its view the matter should be heard and decided once for all by a Division Bench. 2. We have given our due consideration to the arguments advanced before us and have gone through the case of M/s Kumar Swastik Enterprises (supra) as well as reference order wherein a contrary view has been taken as aforesaid. We are of the opinion that Division Bench in the case of M/s Kumar Swastik Enterprises (supra) has taken a too narrow view of the phrase rule as used in clause (XI) of rule 55 of the Rules Under sub-section (68) of Sec. 32 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 (Raj. Act No. 8 of 1955) (for short the General Clauses Act) rule has been defined and as per that sub-section (68) of Sec. 32, rule means a rule made in exercise of a power conferred by any enactment and shall include a non- statutory or other independent rule having for the time being force of law. Law has been defined in sub-section (41) of Sec. 32, which means any Law, Act, Ordinance, Regulation, Rule, Notification, Order, Bye-law, Scheme or other instrument having for the time being the force of law. Law has been defined in sub-section (41) of Sec. 32, which means any Law, Act, Ordinance, Regulation, Rule, Notification, Order, Bye-law, Scheme or other instrument having for the time being the force of law. The Rules having been made under the powers vested under Sec. 46 of the Raj-asthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 (Ordinance No. XV of 1949) have the force of law. Though by virtue of Section 4 of the General Clauses Act, the General Clauses Act is applicable to all Rajasthan laws in force in the pre-reorganisa-tion State of Rajasthan, made after the commencement of that Act including the Rules, but a look at the provisions of Genera! Clauses Act, 1897 (Act No. X of 1897) (for short, the Central Act), moreso its Section 3 (51) will show that the definition of rule shall mean a rule made in exercies of a power conferred by any enactment, and shall include a regulation made as a rule under any enactment. The Supreme Court in the case of (3) General Officer Commanding in Chief vs. Dr. Subhash Chandra Yadav, said that the r. framed under the provisions of statute form part of the statute. But before a rule can have the effect of a statutory provision two conditions must be fulfilled, namely (i) it must conform to the provisions of the statute under which it is framed, and (ii) it must also come within the scope and purview of the rule-making power of the authority framing the rule. Learned counsel for the RSEB by referring to Section 79 (c) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 under which the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Ministerial Staff Regulation, 1962, as amended vide order dated December 5, 1988, were framed, contended that under the aforesaid Section Regulations have also to be framed for day to day administration of the Board and therefore contended that the Phrase rule in clause (XI) of rule 55 of the Rules cannot be given such an extended meaning so as to include the regulation framed under Sec 79 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 and it should only be given restricted meaning limited to the rules framed under any Act. We are of the opinion that the intention of the rule making authority in inserting clause XI in rule 55 of the Rules vide notification dated April 27, 1989 was to confer jurisdiction on a Division Bench to hear writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India involving the challenge to the vires of the provisions of any Act or Rules, Regulations, Notifications, etc. having the force of law. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench in the reference order that the term rule in clause (XI) of rule 55 of the rules should be given a wider interpretation so as to include all types of statutory instruments, which may be described as regulations, bye-laws or Ordinances having the force of law. The use of words or rules made thereunder in clause (XI) of rule 55 of the Rules, makes it clear that the intention was to give a wider interpretation to the termrule. Any other interpretation, in our opinion, will lead to absurdity because even the word Ordinance has not been used in clause (XI) of rule 55 of the Rules and there can be no doubt that the Ordinance is an Act and any challenge to the vires of the Ordinance will only be taken up by a Division Bench. 3. Consequently, we answer the point referred to us by the Division Bench as under:- "The pharse rule used in clause (XI) of rule 55 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 as inserted by notification dated 27, 1989, should receive a wider meaning and should be construed in such a manner so as to include all other statutory provisions e.g. Ordinances, Regulations, Orders, Notifications or Bye-laws framed under some Act and having the force of law and should not be given a restricted meaning. We are of the opinion that the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of M/s Kumar Swastik Enterprises V. Union of India and other, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4684 /89, decided on November 20, 1989, is not the correct view".