ORDER : Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, C.J. 1. The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard yesterday. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the provisions of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (for short "the said Ordinance") and the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers (Amendment) Act, 2020 (for short "the Amendment Act") which has replaced the said Ordinance. 3. The Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 came into force from 7th day of September 2011 which provides that no person shall carry on the business of stone crushing in the State except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued under the said Act of 2011. 4. Writ Petition No. 17078 of 1997 was filed by one Sri Obayya Pujary and two others in this Court in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation inviting the attention of the Court to the uncontrolled activity of stone crushing in the State of Karnataka which resulted into air and noise pollution having drastic consequences. By the judgment and order dated 10th July 1998, this Court issued various directions in paragraph No. 18 to the State Government and other authorities. The first direction was to the State Government to immediately formulate a policy regulating carrying on of the business of stone crushing by prescribing reasonable conditions including guidelines providing for issue of licences and their periodical renewal. Further directions were issued directing identification of safer zones and shifting of stone crusher units in the safer zone. 5. In the preamble of the said Act of 2011, it is noted that for giving effect to the said decision, the said Act of 2011 is being enacted. 6. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act of 2011 provides for grant of a licence. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act of 2011 deals with the persons who were already carrying on the business of stone crushing on the date of commencement of the said Act of 2011. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 provides that every application for grant or renewal of licence to carry on business of stone crushing shall be made to the Licensing Authority in a prescribed form in a prescribed manner. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 provides that every application for grant or renewal of licence to carry on business of stone crushing shall be made to the Licensing Authority in a prescribed form in a prescribed manner. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 mandates that on receipt of such application for grant or renewal of a licence, the Licensing Authority shall cause joint inspection of the location under Sub-section (3) of Section 6 for the purpose of declaration of a safer zone. After joint inspection, the Licensing Authority is under a mandate to issue a Certificate of Consent of safer zone. If the area proposed in the application for grant of a licence or renewal of licence is not declared as a safer zone, the Licensing Authority is under a mandate to reject the application for grant or renewal of licence. Sub-section (3) of Section 4 provides that if the Licensing Authority issues a certificate of safer zone, the applicant must approach the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (for short "the Pollution Control Board") and shall obtain Consent for Operation (CFO). 7. Section 5 prior to its amendment made by the Amendment Act provides that the validity period of a licence shall be five years and it can be renewed for a further period of five years. Section 6 lays down the conditions for declaration of safer zone for stone crushers. The requisite conditions for declaration of an area as a safer zone have been laid down in Sub-section (1) of Section 6. Sub-section (2) of Section 6A provides that on production of Consent for Operation Certificate issued by the Pollution Control Board, the Licensing Authority is under a mandate to grant a licence to the applicant subject to the conditions incorporated therein. Sub-section (1) of Section 6A lays down that no licence shall be issued for stone crushers outside the safer zone. The other provisions of the said Act may not be relevant for consideration of the issues involved in this petition. 8. By the said Ordinance and the Amendment Act, the definition of 'other road' was added in the form of clause (g-a) in Section 2. Sub-sections (2) to (7) of Section 3 have been omitted. A proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 has been inserted. 8. By the said Ordinance and the Amendment Act, the definition of 'other road' was added in the form of clause (g-a) in Section 2. Sub-sections (2) to (7) of Section 3 have been omitted. A proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 has been inserted. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 provides that an application for renewal of licence shall be made to the Licensing Authority three months before the expiry of licence. The proviso added lays down that if the application for renewal is not made three months before the expiry of licence, but it is made one month before the expiry of licence, it can be accepted for valid reasons subject to payment of additional fee as may be prescribed. 9. Section 4A was added providing for a transfer of a licence. Section 4B is added conferring right on the legal representatives of the deceased licensee to secure transfer of licence in their name. 10. We are mainly concerned with the amendment carried out to Section 5 by Section 6 of the Ordinance and the Amendment Act. Section 6 of the Amendment Act reads thus: "6. Substitution of section 5-section 5 of the principal Act, shall be renumbered as sub-section (1) thereof and,- (i) in sub-section (1) as to renumbered, for the words "valid for five years" and for the words "for further period of five years" the words "valid for twenty years" and the words "further period of ten years" shall be substituted. (ii) after sub-section (1) the following shall be inserted, namely:- "(2) Subject to payment of such annual regulation fee as may be prescribed, all existing crusher licenses granted before the commencement of Karnataka Stone Crusher Regulation (Amendment) Act, 2020 shall be deemed to have been granted for a period of twenty years form the date of original grant and shall be extended accordingly. (3) The benefit of extension under sub-section (2) of this section shall also apply,- (i) for cases where crusher license renewal application was filed before the expiry of such license which is pending consideration before the licensing Authority; and (ii) for the cases where the licensing Authority has rejected renewal applications solely on the ground of non-filing of such applications three months prior to expiry of such license but has applied for renewal before the expiry of license as stipulated under sub-section (1), the renewal under clause (ii) shall be subject to payment of the penalty of rupees two lakh. (4) Upon expiry of the period of crusher license specified in sub-section (1) and (2) of this section, the Licensing Authority may renew the license on an application for renewal for further period of ten years." 11. By Section 7 of the Amendment Act, an amendment was made to clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 by providing that safer zone shall not be located within 50 meters from the limits of other roads as defined in clause (g-a) of Section 2. By the Amendment Act, Section 16 was also drastically amended. Amended Section 16 provides for drastic punishment for the violation of Section 3 of the said Act of 2011. SUBMISSIONS 12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited our attention to the provisions of the said Ordinance and the Amendment Act. His main contention is that the amendment made to Section 6 of the said Act of 2011 and in particular, to clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 is in complete violation of the directions issued by this Court in clause (4) onwards of paragraph 18 in the case of OBAYYA PUJARY AND OTHERS. His submission is that as per the directions of this Court, a safer zone cannot be situated within the distance of 50 meters from the roads. He submitted that the provision made for grant of licence for twenty years is unreasonable and arbitrary. He pointed out that an explanation has been added to Section 6 that if after granting licence, any temple or road comes up within the prohibited area as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 6, the same will not affect the operation and continuation of licence. 13. He pointed out that an explanation has been added to Section 6 that if after granting licence, any temple or road comes up within the prohibited area as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 6, the same will not affect the operation and continuation of licence. 13. He invited our attention to various other specific averments made in the petition regarding the illegality in the deletion of sub-sections (2) to (7) of Section 3. He urged that the Ordinance and the Amendment Act have been hurriedly made during the period of COVID-19. He submitted that the Amendment will lead to pollution thereby infringing the rights of citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 14. The learned Additional Government Advocate supported the Ordinance and the said Amendment Act by pointing out that there is nothing unconstitutional about it. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that by virtue of clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (3) of Section 5 added by the Amendment Act, the licencee, after expiry of the licence, will be entitled to renewal of licence without verifying whether the site is within the safer zone. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS 16. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions. The grounds on which a legislation can be challenged are now settled. It is well settled that a legislation can be challenged firstly, on the ground of lack of legislative competence, secondly, on the ground that the same is in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution or that the same is in violation of any of the provisions of the Constitution and thirdly, the same is manifestly arbitrary. 17. We may refer here to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS (BOMBAY) PRIVATE LTD. AND OTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS : (1985) 1 SCC 641 which lays down the law on the subject. By a subsequent decision of the Apex Court in the case of SHAYARA BANO vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS : (2017) 9 SCC 1 , additional ground became available that a legislative provision is manifestly arbitrary. However, it is well settled that a provision of a legislation cannot be challenged merely on the ground that it is unreasonable or on the ground of the legislature could have come out with a better legislation. However, it is well settled that a provision of a legislation cannot be challenged merely on the ground that it is unreasonable or on the ground of the legislature could have come out with a better legislation. The possible misuse of a legislation cannot be also a ground to challenge it. The law on the aspect of judicial review of legislative action has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of BINOY VISWAM vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2017) 7 SCC 59 . 18. Before we deal with the specific contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is necessary to find out the nature of changes effected by the said Ordinance and the said Amendment Act. Sub-sections (2) to (7) of Section 3 have been deleted. The said sub-sections dealt with the persons who were carrying on the business of stone crushing on the date of the commencement of the said Act of 2011. The said provisions were relevant when the said Act of 2011 came into force. Therefore, when the Amendment Act came into force, the said sub-sections of Section 3 were not of any significance at all. In any case, there is no legal ground pointed out to interfere with this part of the amendment. 19. Section 4 of the said Act of 2011 has not undergone any amendment except the addition of a proviso to sub-section (1). For the sake of convenience, we are reproducing the unamended Section 4 which reads thus: "4. Application for licence.-(1) Every application for grant or renewal of licence to carry on the business of stone crushing under this Act shall be made to the Licensing Authority in such form, in such manner, accompanied by such documents and such fees as may be prescribed. An application for renewal of licence shall be made to the Licensing Authority three months before the expiry of the licence. (2) On receipt of application for grant or renewal of licence, the Licensing Authority shall cause joint inspection of the location under sub-section (3) of Section 6. After declaration of safer zone, the Licensing Authority shall issue a certificate of consent of safer zone to the applicant. If the area proposed in the application is not declared as safer zone, the Licensing Authority shall reject the application for the reasons to be recorded in writing and inform the applicant accordingly. After declaration of safer zone, the Licensing Authority shall issue a certificate of consent of safer zone to the applicant. If the area proposed in the application is not declared as safer zone, the Licensing Authority shall reject the application for the reasons to be recorded in writing and inform the applicant accordingly. However, applicant is at liberty to make fresh application for alternate location. (3) If the Licensing Authority issues a certificate of consent of safer zone, the applicant shall approach the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and obtain Consent for Operation (CFO) and submit the same to the Licensing Authority." A proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 has been added by the Amendment Act which reads thus: "Provided that, where an applicant has not submitted application three months before the expiry of the licence but makes an application one month before expiry of the licence, it may be accepted for the valid reasons, subject to payment of an additional fee as may be prescribed for expediting the joint inspection and suitability of safer zone and other parameters." Section 5 before its amendment read thus: "5. Term of licence.-A licence shall be valid for a period of five years and may be renewed for a further period of five years subject to fulfillment of the conditions laid down under this Act or the rules made thereunder. Explanation.-Where a licence has been granted in the middle of a year, for the purpose of computing the term of licence, the remaining part of the year shall be deemed to be a year." By Section 6 of the Amendment Act, the existing Section 5 was renumbered as sub-section (1), and sub-sections (2) to (4) have been added. Section 6 of the Amendment Act reads thus: "6. Substitution of section 5.-section 5 of the principal Act, shall be renumbered as subsection (1) thereof and,- (i) in sub-section (1) as to re-numbered, for the words "valid for five years" and for the words "for further period of five years" the words "valid for twenty years" and the words "further period of ten years" shall be substituted. Substitution of section 5.-section 5 of the principal Act, shall be renumbered as subsection (1) thereof and,- (i) in sub-section (1) as to re-numbered, for the words "valid for five years" and for the words "for further period of five years" the words "valid for twenty years" and the words "further period of ten years" shall be substituted. (ii) after sub-section (1) the following shall be inserted, namely:- "(2) Subject to payment of such annual regulation fee as may be prescribed, all existing crusher licenses granted before the commencement of Karnataka Stone Crusher Regulation (Amendment) Act, 2020 shall be deemed to have been granted for a period of twenty years from the date of original grant and shall be extended accordingly. (3) The benefit of extension under subsection (2) of this section shall also apply,- (i) for cases where crusher license renewal application was filed before the expiry of such license which is pending consideration before the licensing Authority; and (ii) for the cases where the licensing Authority has rejected renewal applications solely on the ground of non-filing of such applications three months prior to expiry of such license but has applied for renewal before the expiry of licence as stipulated under subsection (1), the renewal under clause (ii) shall be subject to payment of the penalty of rupees two lakh. (4) Upon expiry of the period of crusher license specified in sub-section (1) and (2) of this section, the Licensing Authority may renew the licence on an application for renewal for further period for ten years." (underline supplied) Section 6 of the said Act of 2011, as it stood before its amendment, read thus: "6. Conditions for declaring Safer Zone.-The declaration of safer zone for stone crushers under this Act, shall be subject to the following conditions, namely.- (1) The safer zone shall not be located within.- (a) Two hundred meter from the limits of the National Highways or State Highways; (b) One hundred meter from the limits of major district roads or other roads; (c) Five hundred meter from revenue village, temples, schools; (d) The boundary of Municipal Corporations, City Municipal Corporation, Town Municipal Council. (2) Each stone crusher unit shall be located in a minimum area of one acre of land. (2) Each stone crusher unit shall be located in a minimum area of one acre of land. (3) The Licensing Authority shall, within a period of three months from the date of receiving application, verify the above conditions through joint inspection from the concerned Officers of Mines and Geology, Revenue, Forest Department and Environmental Officer, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and declare safer zone within their jurisdiction by notification, specifying the area and its limits: Provided that the Licensing Authority shall declare the safer zone for existing stone crusher within one month in any case not later than three months from the date of receipt of application." 20. By virtue of Section 7 of the Amendment Act, in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 6, for the word "or", the words "and fifty meter from the limits of" have been substituted. An explanation has been added to Section 6 by virtue of Section 7 of the Amendment Act. The added explanation reads thus: "Explanation: For the purpose of this Act, any habitation, school, temples or road coming up subsequent to declaration of safer zone shall not affect the operation or continuance of such declaration and shall not affect any extension of licence under section 5." 21. Sub-section (2A) has been added to Section 6A mandating that every licensee shall pay such annual regulation fee as may be prescribed. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 refers to "other roads". By incorporating clause (g-a) in Section 2 of the said Act of 2011, the "other road" has been defined to mean all other roads excluding foot or cart road and a road approaching stone crushers. 22. From the submissions made across the bar, it appears that as far as Section 6 of the Amendment Act is concerned, the challenge is on the ground that the amended provisions are unreasonable and arbitrary. The effect of the amendment to Section 5 by virtue of Section 6 of the Amendment Act is that the licence period will be of twenty years instead of five years and the renewal can be made for a period of ten years. Per se, we find nothing arbitrary about the fixation of licence period. It is not shown that it violates any provision of the Constitution. Moreover, Section 10 of the said Act of 2011 remains untouched after the amendment. Per se, we find nothing arbitrary about the fixation of licence period. It is not shown that it violates any provision of the Constitution. Moreover, Section 10 of the said Act of 2011 remains untouched after the amendment. Section 10 confers a power to cancel a licence if it is granted in violation of the provisions of the said Act of 2011 and in the event of the licensee violating the provisions of the said Act of 2011 or the Rules framed thereunder or committing a breach of the terms of licence. 23. Sub-section (2) of Section 5 added by the Amendment Act creates a legal fiction by providing that subject to payment of such annual regulation fee as may be prescribed, all existing crusher licences granted before the commencement of the Amendment Act shall be deemed to have been granted for a period of twenty years from the date of the original grant. Thus, by a deeming fiction, the period of the licences subsisting on 30th March 2020 has been made twenty years instead of five years. There are no averments made to show that the deemed extension of the period of licence is manifestly arbitrary. It is not pointed out how the same becomes arbitrary. By the Amendment Act, Section 5 has been amended to provide for the licence period of twenty years. By adding sub-section (2) to Section 5 by the Amendment Act, the benefit of the extension of licence period to twenty years has been extended to the subsisting licences. Sub-section (2) of Section 5 brings on par the persons who are holding licences as on 30th March 2020 with those who apply for a licence from 31st March 2020 onwards by providing that even the existing licensees will be entitled to the total licence period of twenty years. There is nothing arbitrary about subsection (2) of Section 5. 24. Clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (3) added to Section 5 apply to the cases where the licences had expired prior to 30th March 2020. Clause (i) of sub-section (3) applies where the applications for renewal of licences were pending on the date on which the Amendment Act came into force (30th March 2020). 24. Clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (3) added to Section 5 apply to the cases where the licences had expired prior to 30th March 2020. Clause (i) of sub-section (3) applies where the applications for renewal of licences were pending on the date on which the Amendment Act came into force (30th March 2020). Clause (ii) of sub-section (3) is applicable to such applications which were made before the expiry of the licence but not three months prior to the expiry of licence and were rejected on the ground that the same were not made three months prior to the expiry of the period of licence. Such applications which were already rejected could be considered for renewal subject to payment of penalty of Rupees two lakh. 25. Thus, the effect of clause (i) of sub-section (3) added to Section 5 is that in case of licences which have expired prior to 30th March 2020 and renewal applications were pending on that day, if the licensees are entitled to renewal of licences, the licensees will be entitled to the benefit of subsection (2) of Section 5 which provides that the total period of licence will be twenty years. Thus, in case of applications covered by clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (3) of Section 5, if it is found that the applicants are entitled to renewal of the licences, they are entitled to a further licence period of fifteen years. Clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (3) of Section 5 ensure that the provision made for deemed extension of the period of licence up to twenty years is made applicable while renewing the licences which expired prior to 30th March 2020. Clause (ii) is applicable to a case where application for renewal is made before expiry of the licence but not three months before expiry of the licence and the application has been rejected solely on the ground of the failure to apply for renewal three months before expiry of the licence. Thus, if the application for renewal has been rejected prior to 30th March 2020 on a ground other than the failure to apply three months before the expiry of the licence, the benefit of clause (ii) of subsection (3) of Section 5 will not be available. Moreover, this provision is applicable to rejections made prior to 30th March 2020. 26. Thus, if the application for renewal has been rejected prior to 30th March 2020 on a ground other than the failure to apply three months before the expiry of the licence, the benefit of clause (ii) of subsection (3) of Section 5 will not be available. Moreover, this provision is applicable to rejections made prior to 30th March 2020. 26. The applications for renewal of licences are governed by sub-section (2) of Section 4. For all purposes, the said applications are treated as the applications for grant of fresh licences. Both clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (3) of Section 5 refer to renewal applications. There is no exception carved out to sub-section (2) of Section 4 in respect of the applications covered by clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (3) of Section 5. Even the renewal applications covered by clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (3) of Section 5 will be governed by the procedure provided in sub-section (2) of Section 4. Therefore, before the benefit as per sub-section (2) of Section 5 is granted on the renewal applications covered by clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (3) of Section 5, the exercise of joint survey for declaration of safer zone as contemplated by subsection (2) of Section 4 read with Section 6 will have to be undertaken. Only after all the conditions including the condition of the site being in safer zone are fulfilled, while renewing the licence, effect will have to be given to sub-section (2) of Section 5. Therefore, we find that there is absolutely no ground made out to challenge the amendment made to Section 5 of the said Act of 2011 by the Amendment Act. 27. The effect of the amendment is that a safer zone can be located at a distance of more than fifty meter from "other roads". The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the amendment to clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 completely contravenes the directions contained about safer zones in clauses (3) to (5) of paragraph 18 of the decision in the case of OBAYYA PUJARY (supra). Clauses (3) to (5) of paragraph 18 read thus: "(3). The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the amendment to clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 completely contravenes the directions contained about safer zones in clauses (3) to (5) of paragraph 18 of the decision in the case of OBAYYA PUJARY (supra). Clauses (3) to (5) of paragraph 18 read thus: "(3). That the State Government shall identify 'safer zones' to be certified by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board within a period of six months from today and take steps for shifting of all existing stone crusher units in the State into those safer zones within a period of one year from today. (4) That the two safer zones shall not be located within a radius of 50 kms. (5) Such safer zones shall not be located within the limits of:- (a) Two kms. from the national highways, habitats, temples, schools and rivers. (b) One and a half kms. from the State Highway. (c) Five hundred meters from the link roads. (d) Eight kms. from the boundary of Municipal Corporations. (e) Four kms. from the District Head Quarters. (f) Two kms. from the boundary limits of a Taluk H.Q. (g) One km. from a inhabited village or any land recorded as forest in Government records or any private land which is shown as cultivable in the revenue records." 28. Section 6 of the said Act of 2011 has already made a major departure from the width of safer zone provided in the aforesaid directions as can be seen from the unamended clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 6. It is, therefore, necessary to make a reference to the findings recorded in the case of OBAYYA PUJARY (supra). The said decision directs the State Government to formulate a policy or guidelines for regulating the stone crushing business. Pending the formulation of the policy or guidelines, the Division of this Court issued certain directions in paragraph 18. It is well settled that the basis of a judicial decision can be taken away by a legislation. That is how the basis of some of the directions issued in the said decision has been taken away by the State Government by enacting the said Act of 2011. In fact, after the said Act of 2011 came into force which is a complete code on the subject, the directions issued in the said decision ceased to apply. That is how the basis of some of the directions issued in the said decision has been taken away by the State Government by enacting the said Act of 2011. In fact, after the said Act of 2011 came into force which is a complete code on the subject, the directions issued in the said decision ceased to apply. Therefore, no Section forming a part of the said Act of 2011 can be challenged on the ground that it runs contrary to the decision in the case of OBAYYA PUJARY (supra). Therefore, the argument based on repugnancy between the provisions of the Amendment Act and the directions issued in the aforesaid decision has no significance at all. A statute cannot be challenged on the ground that the same runs contrary to the directions issued by a writ Court when the said directions were to apply till a legislation is made. 29. A submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner based on the order of the Apex Court dated 11th March 2011 in Civil Appeal No. 7041/2001 is that the said decision dated 10th July 1998 in the case of OBAYYA PUJARY (supra) was confirmed by the Apex Court by the order dated 11th March 2011 and the subsequent interlocutory applications filed by the State of Karnataka and the Karnataka State Stone Crusher and Quarry Owners' Association were dismissed. 30. We have already held that the Amendment Act cannot be challenged on the ground that it runs contrary to the directions issued in the case of OBAYYA PUJARY (supra). Therefore, there is no substance in the challenge to the amendment made to clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 by the Amendment Act. 31. We may note here that some of the provisions of the Amendment Act may not be capable of implementation due to the failure on the part of the State Government to frame the Rules. For example, the benefit under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Amendment Act can be given subject to payment of annual regulation fee as may be prescribed. Even as per the added sub-section (2A) of Section 6A, annual regulation fee is payable which is to be prescribed. For example, the benefit under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Amendment Act can be given subject to payment of annual regulation fee as may be prescribed. Even as per the added sub-section (2A) of Section 6A, annual regulation fee is payable which is to be prescribed. By virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the said Act of 2011, the definitions in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short "the said Act of 1957") will have to be read into the provisions of the said Act of 2011. The word "prescribed" has been defined in the said Act of 1957 in clause (f) of Section 3 to mean prescribed by the Rules made under the said Act of 1957. Therefore, the amended provisions such as, sub-section (2) of Section 5 and sub-section (2A) of Section 6A cannot be implemented unless by exercise of the rule making power, annual regulation fee is prescribed. 32. Hence, we pass the following order: (i) Subject to what is held by us on interpretation of clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Amendment Act, no case is made out to interfere with the validity of the said Ordinance and the Amendment Act. The writ petition is rejected. (ii) The pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of. Petition Dismissed