power reserved by the Order of 1923 and was an effective defence to the action, although it was retrospective in its operation and that this was no exercise of judicial power. The direction to dismiss must be understood in the light of an earlier provision in the same Order in Council which amended the law on which the proceeding was founded the dismissal was thus the result of the change in the law and all that the later clause showed was that the change was to have retrospective effect and govern the rights of parties even in pending proceedings. The decision would be helpful here only if and in so far as the provision in Clause (4) had followed from a change in any rule of law. 313. The decision in Piare Dusadh v. King Emperor, (1944) 6 FCR 61 = (AIR 1944 FC 1) concerned the validation of a sentence imposed by a special Criminal Court which was held to have no jurisdiction to try the case by an order of a Court. By a validation Act the jurisdiction was conferred with retrospective effect on the special Criminal Court and the sentence imposed by it was made lawful. It was held that there was no exercise of any judicial power by the legislating authority. 314. In Kanta Kathuria v. Manak Chand Surana. (1970) 2 SCR 835 = (AIR 1970 SC 694), the appellant, a Government advocate stood for election to the State Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan and was declared elected. The election was challenged and the ground of challenge was that the appellant held an office of profit within the meaning of Art. 191 of the Constitution. The High Court set aside the election for that reason. While the appeal was pending in this Court. Rajasthan Act 5 of 1969 was passed declaring among others that the holder of the office of a Special Government Pleader was not disqualified from being chosen or for being a member of the State Legislative Assembly; and, by S. 2(2), the Act was made retrospective removing the appellant's disqualification retrospectively. It was held that Act 5 of 1969 had removed the disqualification retrospectively, that Parliament and the State legislatures can legislate retrospectively subject to the provisions of the Constitution, that no limitation on the powers of the legislature to make a declaration validating an election could be put, and that by enacting the impugned Act the disqualification if any which existed in the 1951 Act had been removed. 315. In State of Orissa v. Bhupendra Kumar Bose 1962 Supp (2) SCR 380 = (AIR 1962 SC 945), the facts were as follows: Elections were held for the Cuttack Municipality and 27 persons were declared elected as councillors. One B who was defeated at the elections, filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the elections. The High Court held that the electoral rolls had not been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Orissa Municipalities Act, 1950, as the age qualification had been published too late thereby curtailing the period of claims and objections to the preliminary roll to 2 days from 21 days as prescribed; consequently, the High Court set aside the elections. The State took the view that the judgment affected not merely the Cuttack Municipality but other municipalities also. Accordingly, the Governor promulgated an ordinance validating the elections to the Cuttack