Himachal Pradesh High Court
Riya Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 15 July, 2026
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
2026:HHC:28741
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.14874 of 2025
Reserved on: 18.05.2026
Date of decision: 15.07.2026
.
Uploaded on: 15.07.2026
Riya Sharma. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents.
of
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.
rt
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the petitioner : Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate.
For the respondent(s) : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional
Advocate General for respondents No.1 &
2-State.
: Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate, vice Ms.
Heena Chauhan, Advocate, for
respondent No.3-HP Para Veterinary
Council.
: Respondent No.4 proceeded ex parte vide
order dated 05.03.2026.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
Petitioner, invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, has approached this Court against
refusal of her registration with Himachal Pradesh Para Veterinary
Council (for brevity, ‘State Council’) by referring to provisions of
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes
1
::: Downloaded on – 15/07/2026 20:33:08 :::CIS
-2- 2026:HHC:28741
Rule 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Para Veterinary Council Rules,
2011 (for brevity, ‘HPPVC Rules’), framed in exercise of powers
under the Himachal Pradesh Para Veterinary Council Act, 2010 (for
.
brevity, ‘HPPVC Act’).
2. Petitioner, a bona fide resident of Himachal Pradesh,
has completed for a Diploma in Veterinary Science and Animal
of
Health Technology from College of Veterinary Science, Rampura
Phul, District Bathinda, Punjab, an institution of Guru Angad Dev
rt
Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, District Ludhiana,
Punjab (for brevity, ‘GADVAS University’).
3. Section 38 of HPPVC Act, 2010, provides that State
Council shall cause to maintain a State Register of Para Veterinary
Practitioners in such form, as may be prescribed, by Regulations
with further provision that no person shall be registered in the State
Register as Para Veterinary Practitioners, unless he possesses a
recognized qualification and has not paid such fee, as may be
prescribed and different fee may be prescribed for different
qualifications and the registration shall be valid for a period of three
years.
4. Section 53 of HPPVC Act, 2010, empowers the State to
make Rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act, whereas
::: Downloaded on – 15/07/2026 20:33:08 :::CIS
-3- 2026:HHC:28741
Section 54 of the Act empowers the Council to make Regulations
with previous approval of the State Government and subject to Rules
made under Section 53 of the Act.
.
5. In exercise of powers under Section 53 of HPPVC Act,
vide notification dated 22.09.2011, the State has notified the
Himachal Pradesh Para Veterinary Council Rules, 2011.
of
6. Rule 14 of HPPVC Rules, 2011, deals with registration
of Para Veterinary Practitioners and renewal fee etc., which reads
as under:-
rt
“14. Registration of Para-Veterinary Practitioner and
renewal fees.-(1) Any person who has qualified the course as
approved by the State Government from time to time in Para-
veterinary subjects from the Training Centers of Animal
Husbandry Department whether temporarily or permanently
established, from Private Institutions and Universities recognized
by the State Government shall be eligible for registration in the
Council. The private Institutions and Universities imparting this
training shall have to be got registered with the Council.
(2) The application under section 38 to register the Para-
veterinary practitioner in a State Registrar of Para-veterinary
practitioners maintained under sub-section (2) of section 38 shall
be submitted in Form D, either by registered post or in person to
the Registrar and shall be accompanied by a fees of rupees two
hundred fifty only in the form of a bank draft drawn on any
scheduled bank in favour of the Registrar and attested copies of
certificate of Training issued by the Animal Husbandry Department
or Choudhary Sarwan Kumar, Himachal Pradesh Krishi
Vishwavidyala Palampur.
(3) Certificate of Registration as Para-veterinary practitioner
shall be issued by the Registrar in Form-E and shall be valid for a
period of three years from the date of its i issue. BE No person
without registration shall either hold any office with the State
::: Downloaded on – 15/07/2026 20:33:08 :::CIS
-4- 2026:HHC:28741
Government, autonomous bodies or practice anywhere in the
state.
(4) Every Para-veterinary practitioner registered under this
rule shall renew his certificate of registration after every three
.
years on payment of fees of rupees one hundred only in the form
of bank draft drawn on scheduled bank in favour of the Registrar.
(5) The application under sub- rule (4) to: renew the certificate
of Registration as a Para-veterinary practitioner shall be submitted
in Form-F either by registered post or in person.”
7. For registration with the State Council, a person must
of
have qualified the course of Para Veterinary subjects.
8. Section 2(a), 2(e), 2(f), 2(j) and 2(k) of HPPVC Act,
rt
2010, define “approved institution”, “Para-veterinarian”, “institution”,
“recognized Para-veterinary qualifications” and “registered Para-
veterinary practitioner”, which read as under:-
“2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires,-
(a) “approved institution” means a State Level Veterinary
Hospital, Disease Investigation Laboratories, Veterinary
Polyclinic, Veterinary Hospital, Veterinary Dispensary,Livestock and Poultry Farms or other such institution
recognized by a University as an institution in which a
person may undergo the training, if any, required by his
course of study before the award of any Para-veterinaryqualification to him;
(b) xx xx xx
(c) xx xx xx
(d) xx xx xx
(e) "Para-veterinarian" means any personnel qualified in Para-
veterinary subject and who helps in practice of veterinary
medicine and designated as Veterinary Pharmacist,
Animal Husbandry Assistant (AHA) or Chief Veterinary
Pharmacist;
::: Downloaded on – 15/07/2026 20:33:08 :::CIS
-5- 2026:HHC:28741
(f) "institution" means any institution, within or outside India,
which grants degrees, diplomas, certificates or licence in
Para-veterinary;
(g) xx xx xx
(h) xx xx xx
.
(i) xx xx xx
(j) "recognized Para-veterinary qualifications" means a
degree, diploma or certificate in any Para-veterinary
qualifications, granted by any University established bylawor any other institution recognized by the State
Government in this behalf;
(k) “registered Para-veterinary practitioner” means a person
of
registered as such undersection 38 of this Act;
…..”
9. Petitioner, after completing her Diploma from GADVAS
rt
University, applied for registration with the State Council, but her
application was rejected, whereupon she, by filing a written
application dated 08.07.2025 (Annexure P-3), sought reasons for
rejection of her application for registration with the State Council.
10. Vide communication dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure P-4),
Registrar, H.P. Para Veterinary Council, communicated rejection of
the application of the petitioner by reiterating Rule 14 of HPPVC
Rules, 2011, with the following observations:-
“The diploma in Veterinary Science and Animal Health
Technology from Guru Angad Dev, Vety. and Animal Health
University, Ludhiana (Punjab) is not recognized by the Himachal
Pradesh State Government and the said institution is also not
registered with HPPVC, which is mandatory for registration of
practitioner with the said Council.
Therefore, the application with the HPPVC is not
considered.”
::: Downloaded on – 15/07/2026 20:33:08 :::CIS
-6- 2026:HHC:28741
11. Undoubtedly, GADVAS University is a University
established by a statute enacted by Punjab State Legislative
Assembly vide Act No.16 of 2005. GADVAS University has been
.
recognised by University Grants Commission (‘UGC’) to receive
Central assistance under Section 12-B of the UGC Act, 1956.
GADVAS University has accreditation from UGC and Indian Council
of
of Agricultural Research (‘ICAR’) and has been admitted as a regularmember of Association of Indian Agricultural Universities (‘AIAU’)
rt
and Association of Indian Universities (‘AIU’). College of VeterinaryScience, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda (Punjab), has been
established as a constituent college of GADVAS University,
Ludhiana, which has been functional since 01.10.2019, for imparting
education in Bachelor of Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry
Programme with approval of Veterinary Council of India.
12. The HPPVC Act, 2010, provides that ‘recognized Para
Veterinary qualifications’ means a degree, diploma or certificate in
any Para Veterinary qualification granted by any University
established by law or any other institution recognized by the State
Government in this behalf. Therefore, the Diploma obtained from
GADVAS University, established by law, is a recognized Para
Veterinary qualification.
::: Downloaded on – 15/07/2026 20:33:08 :::CIS
-7- 2026:HHC:28741
13. The stand of the respondents that GADVAS University
must be recognized by the State Council is misconceived, as Section
2(j) of the HPPVC Act, 2010, recognizes Para Veterinary
.
qualifications granted by any University established by law. Once a
University is established by law, there is no necessity for recognition
of the said University by the State Government. Provisions of Section
of
2(j) of the HPPVC Act clearly define two types of institutions: first, aUniversity established by law, for which there is no condition of
rt
recognition by the State Government, and second, any otherinstitution recognized by the State Government. Therefore, the
Diploma completed by the petitioner from GADVAS University is a
recognized Para Veterinary qualification.
14. Section 38 of the HPPVC Act, 2010, deals with the State
Register and registration of Para Veterinary Practitioners. It does not
restrict registration to candidates who complete the relevant degree,
diploma or certificate in Veterinary Science from Universities
established by law as well as Institutions recognized by the State
Government. Recognition by the State Government is mandatory for
any other institution, but not for Universities established by law.
15. Provisions of the HPPVC Act, 2010, devolves power to
frame Rules from Section 53 of the HPPVC Act. Once there is no
::: Downloaded on – 15/07/2026 20:33:08 :::CIS
-8- 2026:HHC:28741
requirement for registration with Government, the Universities
imparting education in Veterinary Science, the Rules cannot restrict
eligibility only to Institutions/Universities recognized by the State
.
Government, and Rules cannot impose a condition requiring a
University duly established by an enactment of the State Legislature
and also recognized by the UGC and having accreditation from the
of
UGC as well as Indian Council of Agricultural Research (‘ICAR’), tobe recognized by the State for registration of a person completing
rt
the relevant course in Veterinary Science from such University.
Therefore, Rule 14 of the HPPVC Rules, 2011, to the extent it
provides that institutions/Universities imparting training shall have to
be registered with the State Council, as well as providing that only
Universities recognized by the State Government shall be eligible for
registration in the State Council, is in direct conflict with the
provisions of the HPPVC Act, 2010.
16. It is settled law that Rules and Regulations can
supplement the Act, but cannot supplant the same. In this regard, a
judgment of this High Court in Som Krishan vs. Paras Ram & Ors.,
reported in AIR 1958 (Himachal Pradesh) 26, is relevant to be
referred to, and para 12 whereof reads as under:-
12. Rule 78 has no application here, because the District
Judge has found, that the deposit was made according to rules.
::: Downloaded on – 15/07/2026 20:33:08 :::CIS
-9- 2026:HHC:28741
The only question, therefore, that remains to be decided, is,
whether the petitioner was debarred from requesting the Court to
alter or amend his pleadings, under the provisions of Order 6, Rule
17. The answer to this question would depend upon, whether Rule
69 of the Territorial Councils Rules 1957 is derogatory or.
supplementary to Section 16 of the Territorial Councils Act.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently, argued, that a rule
could never supersede any provision of the Act, under which it has
been framed. He cited the following authorities Radha Krishan v.
Compensation Officer, Meja, Allahabad, AIR 1954 All 202 (A).
There a Division Bench of that High Court had occasion to indicate
that :
of
“Rules mad(c) under the rule making provision of an
Act cannot take away what is given by the Act. Rules
are for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of
the Act. Hence, the contention that the State
rtGovernment can make a rule, namely Rule 84, taking
away the discretion of the Compensation Officer
under Section 69 cannot be accepted.”
Mustarshid Ali v. Commr. of Wakfs, AIR 1954 Cal 436 (B).
There a learned Judge of that High Court had occasion to indicate
that :
“In some statutes, power is given to frame rules and
when so framed they are made part of the statute. In
such a case, it might be permissible to supplement
the provisions of the statute itself, within limits. Butwhere rules are to be framed for “carrying out the
purpose of the Act,” such rules cannot travel beyondthe four corners of the Act itself.”
“In the case of statutory rules, the Court can always
go into the question, as to whether they areinconsistent with the statute under which they are
made.”
Abdul Gani v. Settlement Officer, Nowgong, AIR 1955
Assam 45 (C). There a Division Bench of that High Court held
that;
“It is fundamental that a rule-making body cannot
frame rules in conflict with or derogating from the
substantive provisions of the law or statute under
which the rules are framed.””
::: Downloaded on – 15/07/2026 20:33:08 :::CIS
-10- 2026:HHC:28741
17. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Nedurimili
Janardhana Reddy vs. Progressive Democratic Students’ Union
and Ors., reported in (1994) 6 SCC 506, is also relevant, wherein it
.
has been held that Rules cannot be made to supplant the provisions
of the Act, but to supplement them, and they have to be read as such.
18. In this regard, the following paragraph from the
of
pronouncement of the Apex Court in St. Johns Teachers TrainingInstitute vs. Regional Director, National Council for Teacher
rt
Education & Anr., reported in (2003) 3 SCC 321, is relevant:-
“10. A Regulation is a rule or order prescribed by a superior for
the management of some business and implies a rule for general
course of action. Rules and Regulations are all comprised in
delegated legislations. The power to make subordinate legislation
is derived from the enabling Act and it is fundamental that thedelegate on whom such a power is conferred has to act within the
limits of authority conferred by the Act. Rules cannot be made to
supplant the provisions of the enabling Act but to supplement it.
What is permitted is the delegation of ancillary or subordinatelegislative functions, or, what is fictionally called, a power to fill up
details. The legislature may, after laying down the legislative policy
confer discretion on an administrative agency as to the executionof the policy and leave it to the agency to work out the details
within the frame work of policy. The need for delegated legislation
is that they are framed with care and minuteness when thestatutory authority making the Rule, after coming in to force of the
Act, is in a better position to adapt the Act to special
circumstances. Delegated legislation permits utilisation of
experience and consultation with interests affected by the practical
operation of statutes. Rules and Regulations made by reason of
the specific power conferred by the Statutes to make Rules and
Regulations establish the pattern of conduct to be followed.
Regulations are in aid of enforcement of the provisions of the
Statute. The process of legislation by departmental Regulations
saves time and is intended to deal with local variations and the
power to legislate by statutory instrument in the form of Rules and
Regulations is conferred by Parliament. The main justification for
delegated legislation is that the legislature being over burdened::: Downloaded on – 15/07/2026 20:33:08 :::CIS
-11- 2026:HHC:28741
and the needs of the modern day society being complex it can not
possibly foresee every administrative difficulty that may arise after
the Statute has begun to operate. Delegated legislation fills those
needs. The Regulations made under power conferred by the
Statute are supporting legislation and have the force and affect, if.
validly made, as the Act passed by the competent legislature. (See
Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram AIR 1975 SC 1331)”
19. The Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. S.
Srinivasan, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 683, has held as under:-
of
“21. At this stage, it is apposite to state about the rule-making
powers of a delegating authority. If a rule goes beyond the rule-
making power conferred by the statute, the same has to be
declared ultra vires. If a rule supplants any provision for which
power has not been conferred, it becomes ultra vires. The basic
rt
test is to determine and consider the source of power which is
relatable to the rule. Similarly, a rule must be in accord with the
parent statute as it cannot travel beyond it.
22. In this context, we may refer with profit to the decision
in General Officer Commanding-in-Chief v. Subhash Chandra
Yadav [(1988) 2 SCC 351] wherein it has been held as follows :
(SCC p. 357, para 14)
“14. … before a rule can have the effect of a statutory
provision, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) itmust conform to the provisions of the statute under which
it is framed; and (2) it must also come within the scope andpurview of the rule-making power of the authority framing
the rule. If either of these two conditions is not fulfilled, the
rule so framed would be void.”
23. In Delhi Admn. v. Siri Ram [(2000) 5 SCC 451] it has been
ruled that it is a well-recognised principle that the conferment of
rule-making power by an Act does not enable the rule-making
authority to make a rule which travels beyond the scope of the
enabling Act or which is inconsistent therewith or repugnant
thereto.
24. In Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh
Raghuvanshi [(1975) 1 SCC 421] the Constitution Bench has held
that : (SCC p. 433, para 18)
“18. … statutory bodies cannot use the power to make
rules and regulations to enlarge the powers beyond the
::: Downloaded on – 15/07/2026 20:33:08 :::CIS
-12- 2026:HHC:28741
scope intended by the legislature. Rules and regulations
made by reason of the specific power conferred by the
statute to make rules and regulations establish the pattern
of conduct to be followed”.
.
25. In State of Karnataka v. H. Ganesh Kamath [(1983) 2 SCC
402] it has been stated that : (SCC p. 410, para 7)
“7. … It is a well-settled principle of interpretation of
statutes that the conferment of rule-making power by an
Act does not enable the rule-making authority to make a
rule which travels beyond the scope of the enabling Act or
which is inconsistent therewith or repugnant thereto.”
of
26. In Kunj Behari Lal Butail v. State of H.P. [(2000) 3 SCC 40]
it has been ruled thus : (SCC p. 46, para 13)
“13. It is very common for the legislature to provide for a
rtgeneral rule-making power to carry out the purpose of the
Act. When such a power is given, it may be permissible to
find out the object of the enactment and then see if the
rules framed satisfy the test of having been so framed as
to fall within the scope of such general power confirmed. If
the rule-making power is not expressed in such a usual
general form then it shall have to be seen if the rules made
are protected by the limits prescribed by the parent Act.”
27. In St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. National Council
for Teacher Education [(2003) 3 SCC 321] it has been observed
that : (SCC p. 331, para 10)
“10. A regulation is a rule or order prescribed by a superior
for the management of some business and implies a rule
for general course of action. Rules and regulations are all
comprised in delegated legislations. The power to make
subordinate legislation is derived from the enabling Act and
it is fundamental that the delegate on whom such a power
is conferred has to act within the limits of authority
conferred by the Act. Rules cannot be made to supplant
the provisions of the enabling Act but to supplement it.
What is permitted is the delegation of ancillary or
subordinate legislative functions, or, what is fictionally
called, a power to fill up details.”
28. In Global Energy Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory
Commission [(2009) 15 SCC 570] this Court was dealing with the
validity of clauses (b) and (f) of Regulation 6-A of the Central
Electricity Regulatory Commission (Procedure, Terms and
::: Downloaded on – 15/07/2026 20:33:08 :::CIS
-13- 2026:HHC:28741
Conditions for Grant of Trading Licence and Other Related
Matters) Regulations, 2004. In that context, this Court expressed
thus : (SCC p. 579, para 25)
“25. It is now a well-settled principle of law that the rule-
.
making power ‘for carrying out the purpose of the Act’ is a
general delegation. Such a general delegation may not be
held to be laying down any guidelines. Thus, by reason of
such a provision alone, the regulation-making power
cannot be exercised so as to bring into existence
substantive rights or obligations or disabilities which are not
contemplated in terms of the provisions of the said Act.”
29. In the said case, while discussing further about the
of
discretionary power, delegated legislation and the requirement of
law, the Bench observed thus : (Global Energy Ltd. case [(2009)
15 SCC 570] , SCC p. 589, para 73)
rt”73. The image of law which flows from this framework is
its neutrality and objectivity: the ability of law to put sphere
of general decision-making outside the discretionary power
of those wielding governmental power. Law has to provide
a basic level of ‘legal security’ by assuring that law is
knowable, dependable and shielded from excessive
manipulation. In the contest of rule-making, delegated
legislation should establish the structural conditions within
which those processes can function effectively. The
question which needs to be asked is whether delegated
legislation promotes rational and accountable policy
implementation. While we say so, we are not oblivious of
the contours of the judicial review of the legislative Acts.
But, we have made all endeavours to keep ourselves
confined within the well-known parameters.”
30. In this context, it would be apposite to refer to a passage
from State of T.N. v. P. Krishnamurthy [(2006) 4 SCC 517]
wherein it has been held thus : (SCC p. 529, para 16)
“16. The court considering the validity of a subordinate
legislation, will have to consider the nature, object and
scheme of the enabling Act, and also the area over which
power has been delegated under the Act and then decide
whether the subordinate legislation conforms to the parent
statute. Where a rule is directly inconsistent with a
mandatory provision of the statute, then, of course, the task
of the court is simple and easy. But where the contention
is that the inconsistency or non-conformity of the rule is not
::: Downloaded on – 15/07/2026 20:33:08 :::CIS
-14- 2026:HHC:28741
with reference to any specific provision of the enabling Act,
but with the object and scheme of the parent Act, the court
should proceed with caution before declaring invalidity.”
31. In Pratap Chandra Mehta v. State Bar Council of
.
M.P. [(2011) 9 SCC 573] , while discussing about the conferment
of extensive meaning, it has been opined that : (SCC p. 604, para
58)
“58. … The Court would be justified in giving the provision
a purposive construction to perpetuate the object of the
Act, while ensuring that such rules framed are within the
field circumscribed by the parent Act. It is also clear that it
may not always be absolutely necessary to spell out
of
guidelines for delegated legislation, when discretion is
vested in such delegatee bodies. In such cases, the
language of the rule framed as well as the purpose sought
to be achieved, would be the relevant factors to be
rt
considered by the Court.”
32. Keeping in view the aforesaid enunciation of law, we think
it appropriate to consider the nature, object and scheme of the
enabling Act, the power conferred under the Rule, the concept of
purposive construction and the discretion vested in the delegated
bodies.”
20. The Apex Court in Ram Chandra Choudhary & Ors.
vs. Roop Nagar Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Limited & Ors.,
reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 583 (Civil Appeal No.4352 of 2026
arising out of SLP(C) No.38579 of 2025), has observed as under:-
“20.8. The legal position governing the validity of subordinate
legislation is well settled. In State of T.N. v. P. Krishnamurthy2,
this Court held that subordinate legislation carries a presumption
of validity and may be invalidated only on limited grounds including
lack of legislative competence, violation of constitutional or
statutory provisions, inconsistency with the parent Act, or manifest
arbitrariness. The Court emphasised that the inquiry must be
directed at whether the subordinate legislation conforms to the2
(2006) 4 SCC 517::: Downloaded on – 15/07/2026 20:33:08 :::CIS
-15- 2026:HHC:28741
object, scheme and scope of the enabling Act. The following
paragraphs are apposite:
“Whether the rule is valid in its entirety?
15. There is a presumption in favour of constitutionality or
validity of a subordinate legislation and the burden is upon.
him who attacks it to show that it is invalid. It is also well
recognised that a subordinate legislation can be
challenged under any of the following grounds:
(a) Lack of legislative competence to make the
subordinate legislation.
(b) Violation of fundamental rights guaranteed
under the Constitution of India.
of
(c) Violation of any provision of the Constitution of
India.
(d) Failure to conform to the statute under which it
is made or exceeding the limits of authority
conferred by the enabling Act.
rt (e) Repugnancy to the laws of the land, that is, any
enactment.
(f) Manifest arbitrariness/unreasonableness (to an
extent where the court might well say that the
legislature never intended to give authority to make
such rules).
16. The court considering the validity of a subordinate
legislation, will have to consider the nature, object and
scheme of the enabling Act, and also the area over which
power has been delegated under the Act and then decide
whether the subordinate legislation conforms to the parent
statute. Where a rule is directly inconsistent with a
mandatory provision of the statute, then, of course, the task
of the court is simple and easy. But where the contention
is that the inconsistency or non-conformity of the rule is not
with reference to any specific provision of the enabling Act,
but with the object and scheme of the parent Act, the court
should proceed with caution before declaring invalidity.
17. In Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v.
Union of India [(1985) 1 SCC 641 : 1985 SCC (Tax) 121 :
(1986) 159 ITR 856] this Court referred to several grounds
on which a subordinate legislation can be challenged as
follows: (SCC p. 689, para 75)
“75. A piece of subordinate legislation does not
carry the same degree of immunity which is enjoyed
by a statute passed by a competent legislature.
Subordinate legislation may be questioned on any
of the grounds on which plenary legislation is
::: Downloaded on – 15/07/2026 20:33:08 :::CIS
-16- 2026:HHC:28741
questioned. In addition it may also be questioned on
the ground that it does not conform to the statute
under which it is made. It may further be questioned
on the ground that it is contrary to some other
statute. That is because subordinate legislation
.
must yield to plenary legislation. It may also be
questioned on the ground that it is unreasonable,
unreasonable not in the sense of not being
reasonable, but in the sense that it is manifestly
arbitrary.”
(emphasis supplied)
18. In Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Assn. v.
Union of India [(1989) 4 SCC 187 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 569]
of
this Court held that the validity of a subordinate legislation
is open to question if it is ultra vires the Constitution or the
governing Act or repugnant to the general principles of the
laws of the land or is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no
fairminded authority could ever have made it. It was further
rt
held that the Rules are liable to be declared invalid if they
are manifestly unjust or oppressive or outrageous or
directed to be unauthorised and/or violative of the general
principles of law of the land or so vague that it cannot be
predicted with certainty as to what it prohibited or so
unreasonable that they cannot be attributed to the power
delegated or otherwise disclose bad faith.
19. In Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [(1990)
3 SCC 223] a Constitution Bench of this Court reiterated:
(SCC pp. 251-52, para 47)
“47. Power delegated by statute is limited by itsterms and subordinate to its objects. The delegate
must act in good faith, reasonably, intra vires the
power granted, and on relevant consideration ofmaterial facts. All his decisions, whether
characterised as legislative or administrative or
quasi-judicial, must be in harmony with theConstitution and other laws of the land. They must
be ‘reasonably related to the purposes of the
enabling legislation’. See Leila Mourning v. Family
Publications Service [1973 SCC OnLine US SC 85 :
411 US 356 (1973) : 36 L.Ed.2d 318]. If they are
manifestly unjust or oppressive or outrageous or
directed to an unauthorised end or do not tend in
some degree to the accomplishment of the objects
of delegation, court might well say, ‘Parliament
never intended to give authority to make such rules;
they are unreasonable and ultra vires’: per Lord
Russel of Killowen, C.J. in Kruse v. Johnson [[1898]
2 Q.B. 91 : [1895-99] All ER Rep 105].”
::: Downloaded on – 15/07/2026 20:33:08 :::CIS
-17- 2026:HHC:28741
20. In St. John’s Teachers Training Institute v. Regional
Director, NCTE [(2003) 3 SCC 321] this Court explained
the scope and purpose of delegated legislation thus: (SCC
p. 331, para 10)
“10. A regulation is a rule or order prescribed by a
.
superior for the management of some business and
implies a rule for general course of action. Rules
and regulations are all comprised in delegated
legislations. The power to make subordinate
legislation is derived from the enabling Act and it is
fundamental that the delegate on whom such a
power is conferred has to act within the limits of
authority conferred by the Act. Rules cannot be
made to supplant the provisions of the enabling Act
of
but to supplement it. What is permitted is the
delegation of ancillary or subordinate legislative
functions, or, what is fictionally called, a power to fill
up details. The legislature may, after laying down
rt the legislative policy confer discretion on an
administrative agency as to the execution of the
policy and leave it to the agency to work out the
details within the framework of policy. The need for
delegated legislation is that they are framed with
care and minuteness when the statutory authority
making the rule, after coming into force of the Act,
is in a better position to adapt the Act to special
circumstances. Delegated legislation permits
utilisation of experience and consultation with
interests affected by the practical operation of
statutes.”
(emphasis supplied)
20.9. These principles have been reaffirmed in Naresh Chandra
Agrawal v. ICAI3, wherein this Court clarified the doctrine of ultra
vires and laid down a structured test. It was also emphasised that
where a statute confers a general power along with enumerated
heads, the latter are illustrative and do not restrict the amplitude
of the general power, so long as the subordinate legislation
advances the object of the Act. The following paragraphs are
apposite:
“15. There is a presumption in favour of constitutionality or
validity of a subordinate legislation and the burden is upon
him who attacks it to show that it is invalid. It is also well
recognised that a subordinate legislation can be
challenged under any of the following grounds:
(a) Lack of legislative competence to make the
subordinate legislation.
3 (2024) 13 SCC 241 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2026 20:33:08 :::CIS -18- 2026:HHC:28741
(b) Violation of fundamental rights guaranteed
under the Constitution of India.
(c) Violation of any provision of the Constitution of
India.
(d) Failure to conform to the statute under which it
.
is made or exceeding the limits of authority
conferred by the enabling Act.
(e) Repugnancy to the laws of the land, that is, any
enactment.
(f) Manifest arbitrariness/unreasonableness (to an
extent where the court might well say that the
legislature never intended to give authority to make
such rules).”
of
(emphasis supplied)
37. From reference to the precedents discussed above
and taking an overall view of the instant matter, we proceed
to distil and summarise the following legal principles that
rt
may be relevant in adjudicating cases where subordinate
legislation are challenged on the ground of being “ultra
vires” the parent Act:
37.1. The doctrine of ultra vires envisages that a rule-
making body must function within the purview of the rule-
making authority, conferred on it by the parent Act. As the
body making Rules or Regulations has no inherent power
of its own to make rules, but derives such power only from
the statute, it must necessarily function within the purview
of the statute. Delegated legislation should not travel
beyond the purview of the parent Act.
37.2. Ultra vires may arise in several ways; there may be
simple excess of power over what is conferred by the
parent Act; delegated legislation may be inconsistent with
the provisions of the parent Act; there may be non-
compliance with the procedural requirement as laid down
in the parent Act. It is the function of the courts to keep all
authorities within the confines of the law by supplying the
doctrine of ultra vires.
37.3. If a rule is challenged as being ultra vires, on the
ground that it exceeds the power conferred by the parent
Act, the Court must, firstly, determine and consider the
source of power which is relatable to the rule. Secondly, it
must determine the meaning of the subordinate legislation
itself and finally, it must decide whether the subordinate
legislation is consistent with and within the scope of the
power delegated.
::: Downloaded on – 15/07/2026 20:33:08 :::CIS
-19- 2026:HHC:28741
37.4. Delegated rule-making power in statutes generally
follows a standardised pattern. A broad section grants
authority with phrases like “to carry out the provisions” or
“to carry out the purposes”. Another sub-section specifies
areas for delegation, often using language like “without
.
prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power”. In
determining if the impugned rule is intra vires/ultra vires the
scope of delegated power, courts have applied the
“generality v. enumeration” principle.
37.5. The “generality v. enumeration” principle lays down
that, where a statute confers particular powers without
prejudice to the generality of a general power already
conferred, the particular powers are only illustrative of the
general power, and do not in any way restrict the general
of
power. In that sense, even if the impugned rule does not
fall within the enumerated heads, that by itself will not
determine if the rule is ultra vires/intra vires. It must be
further examined if the impugned rule can be upheld by
reference to the scope of the general power.
rt
37.6. The delegated power to legislate by making rules
“for carrying out the purposes of the Act” is a general
delegation, without laying down any guidelines as such.
When such a power is given, it may be permissible to find
out the object of the enactment and then see if the rules
framed satisfy the Act of having been so framed as to fall
within the scope of such general power confirmed.
37.7. However, it must be remembered that such power
delegated by an enactment does not enable the authority,
by rules/regulations, to extend the scope or general
operation of the enactment but is strictly ancillary. It will
authorise the provision of subsidiary means of carrying into
effect what is enacted in the statute itself and will cover
what is incidental to the execution of its specific provision.
In that sense, the general power cannot be so exercised as
to bring into existence substantive rights or obligations or
disabilities not contemplated by the provisions of the Act
itself.
37.8. If the rule-making power is not expressed in such a
usual general form but are specifically enumerated, then it
shall have to be seen if the rules made are protected by the
limits prescribed by the parent Act.”
21. Applying the aforesaid exposition of law to the present
case, it is apparent that part of Rule 14 of HPPVC Rules, 2011, is in
::: Downloaded on – 15/07/2026 20:33:08 :::CIS
-20- 2026:HHC:28741
conflict with the parent Act, i.e. HPPVC Act, 2010, and thus is ultra
vires the parent Act and liable to be struck down to the extent it
provides that Universities imparting Para Veterinary Science training
.
shall have to be got registered with the Council and Universities
recognized by the State Government shall be eligible for registration
in the Council. Accordingly, the said part of Rule 14 is quashed and
of
set aside. Resultantly, communication dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure
P-4) is also quashed and set aside.
22.
rt
Consequently, petitioner is held entitled to be registered
with Himachal Pradesh Para Veterinary Council (‘State Council’) and
the State Council is directed to register the petitioner within one
week, subject to completion of all other codal formalities.
Registration certificate be issued to the petitioner accordingly.
23. Petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending
miscellaneous applications(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(Vivek Singh Thakur)
Judge
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
15th July, 2026
(Pardeep)
::: Downloaded on – 15/07/2026 20:33:08 :::CIS
