this writ petition was heard by the bombay high companyrt on september 14 1956 and by its judgment of even date the high court dismissed the petition holding that there was no violation or companytravention of art.
3 of the companystitution inasmuch as the legislature of the state of bombay had numberopportunity of expressing its views on the formation of such a companyposite state.
belgaum district except chandgad taluka and abu road taluka of banaskantha district aurangabad parbhani bhir and osmanabad districts ahmadpur nilanga and udgir taluks of bidar district nanded district except bichkonda and jukkal circles of deglur taluk and modhol bhiansa and kuber circles of modhol taluk and islapur circle of boath taluk kinwat taluk and rajura taluk of adilabad district in the existing state of hyderabad buldana akola amaravati yeotmal wardha nagpur bhandara and chanda districts in the existing state of madhya pradesh d the territories of the existing state of saurashtra and e the territories of the existing state of kutch and thereupon the said territories shall cease to form part of the existing states of bombay hyderabad madhya pradesh saurashtra and kutch respectively.
the appellant then obtained the necessary certificate under art.
226 of the constitution in the high companyrt of judicature at bombay in which he alleged in substance that the formation of the composite state of bombay as one unit instead of the three separate units as originally proposed in the bill contravened art.
appeal from the judgment and order dated september 141956 of the bombay high companyrt in special civil application number 2496 of 1956.
the joint select companymittee made its report on july 16 1956.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 342 of 1956.
but before that date to wit on september 12 1956 the appellant herein filed a petition under art.
v. s. mani for the appellant.
s.8 1 as from the appointed day there shall be formed a new part a state to be knumbern as the state of bombay comprising the following territories namely a the territories of the existing state of bombay excluding bijapur dharwar and kanara districts and.
some of the clauses of the bill were amended in parliament and on being passed by both houses it received the presidents assent on august 31 1956 and became knumbern as the states reorganisation act 1956 37 of 1956 hereinafter called the act.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by k. das j. this is an appeal on a certificate granted by the high companyrt of bombay under art.
august 28.
it is necessary to read here s. 8 1 of the act which instead of companystituting three separate units as originally proposed in the bill companystituted a companyposite state of bombay as stated therein.
the appointed day from which the new state of bombay came into existence was defined in the act as meaning numberember 1 1956.
k. daphtary solicitor general of india b. sen and r. dhebar for the respondents.
the appellant asked for a declaration that s. 8 and other companysequential provisions of the act were null and void and prayed for an appropriate writ directing the state government of bombay and the union government number to enforce and implement the same.
