1. ' The depot of the petitioner was cancelled by the District Magistrate vide his order dated the 19th October 1977. The petitioner filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed as time barred. The petitioner has come up in writ petition against the aforesaid proceedings and orders to this Court. Learned counsel submitted that he was not in a position to challenge the order of the Additional Commissioner dismissing his appeal on the ground of limitation. He conceded that the appeal of his client was time barred and that finding is in no way erroneous. In that view of the matter he tried to raise certain legal points. Firstly, he submitted that the Chief Martial Law Administrator had issued Order No, 3 whereby be had appointed Zonal Administrators and had authorised them to issue "Orders" in their own Zones. His argument was that Martial Law Order No, 3 in this respect was without lawful authority inasmuch as the Chief Martial Law Administrator could issue only Regulations and not Orders. The contention has no merit. According to the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order No, 1 of 1977, the Chief Martial Law Administrator can blue both the "Regulations" as well as "Orders. His next submission was that even if the Chief Martial Law Administrator can issue "Orders", those "Orders" could not be of a legislative nature but should be confined merely to executive functions of the Government. The plea has no substance. A perusal of the Laws Continuance in Force Order, 1977, clearly shows that the Chief Martial Law Administrator can issue "Orders" of a legislative nature. The Laws Continuance in Force Order itself is of a legislative nature which concedes the power of the Chief Martial Law Administrator, even to amend the Constitution. In this context therefore, to argue that the Chief Martial Law Administrator cannot issue legislative Orders is not justified. To carry his point further, the learned counsel then argued that the Chief Martial Law Administrator could not have authorised the Zonal Administrator to issue legislative "Orders". This is a repetition of the earlier submission and once it is held that the Chief Martial Law Administrator can issue Orders of a legislative nature, then obviously he can equally issue such Orders which may authorise Zonal Administrators in their own Zones to promulgate Zonal Martial Law Orders of a legislative nature. No other point was argued. The result is that this writ petition has merit and is, dismissed in limine.