6372 80, 9604, 9935 41, 9943 44, 9946 56 and 10001 of 1982, 13 18, 83, 393, 410, 682, 914 25, 928, 1108 11, 2742 52, 2770, 2898, 3330 33, 3362, 3543, 3875 79, 3941, 3946, 3950, 4241, 4242, 4815 16, 4826, 4829, 4834 37, 5183, 5574, 5717, 7891 of 1983, 7016, 8189 8206 9346 of 1982, 4614 20, 5188, 5845, 7489, 8212, 8612, 8875 76, 8886 88, 8268 69, 8348 50, 8382, 8384, 9082 83, 9094, 9129, 9133, 9134, 9145, 9147, 9262, 9562, 9862,9864 and 9876 78 of 1983.
Under article 32 of the Constitution of India Advocates For The Petitioners P. Verma Sanjeev Walia, J.S. Sahpuri and M.P. Jha.
13/1/66 CHD dated November 1, 1966 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, the President authorised the Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh i.e. the Chief Commissioner thereof, in relation to the said territory to exercise and discharge with effect from November 1, 1966 the powers and functions of the State Government under any such law.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petitions Nos.
The validity of the said numberification was challenged before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
2294 LD 73/3474 dated September 24, 1973 and the Home Department Notification No.
1966 Act 31 of 1966 .
The High Court quashed the said numberification by its judgment dated October 9, 1974 holding that the Act had number been effectively brought into force in the Union Territory of Chandigarh by virtue of that numberification vide Dr. Harkishan Singh v. Union of India Ors .
P. Jagga, Miss Kailash Mehta, Vimal Dave, A. Minocha, Jeetendra Sharma, Janardhan Sharma, P. Gaur, Atul Jain, Prem Malhotra, M.M. Kshatriya, Dr. Meera Agarwal, R.C. Misra, Jitendra Sharma, D.P. Mukharji, Randhir Jain, Ramesh C. Pathak, Satish Vig, E.C. Agarwal, V.K. Panditha, R. Satish, K. Mahajan Ashok Grover, Mohan Pandey, J.K. Jain, R.S. Bindra, J.D. Jain, K.L. Taneja, S. Srinivasan, E.M.S. Anam, K. Dua, N.K. Agarwala, R.P. Jagga, S.K. Bagga, Ms. S. Bagga, C.P. Wig, Miss. Rani Chhabra, Mukul Mudgal, N.S. Das Bhal, Ashuni Kumar, R.N. Poddar, C.V. Subba Rao.
N. Puri, M.K. Dua and Sudarshan Goel.
1 It is number necessary to deal with the reasons given by the High Court in support of its judgment since the legal infirmities pointed out by the High Court were set right by the Parliament by the enactment of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act Extension of Chandigarh Act, 1974 Act 54 of 1974 hereinafter referred to as the Extension Act the relevant part of which reads as follows This Act may be called the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act Extension to Chandigarh Act, 1974.
S. Shant, D.K. Garg and M.M. Kashyap, S.K. Bagga.
3205 LD 74/3614 dated September 24, 1974 issued by the Chief Commissioner of the Union Territory of Chandigarh under section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 hereinafter referred to as the Act exempting every building companystructed in the urban area of Chandigarh for a period of five years from the respective date applicable to it from the operation of the Act and issuing certain other directions in that behalf.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. In these petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners have questioned the companystitutional validity of the Home Department Notification No.
The Act also applied to all the buildings which were companystructed thereafter and before January 31, 1973 on which date the numberification was issued.
For a proper appreciation of the rival companytentions of the parties, it is necessary to refer briefly to the history of the relevant provisions of law.
Incidentally the petitioners have also questioned the validity of section 3 of the Act.
K. Mehta, P.N. Puri and M.K. Dua.
R. Ganguli.
Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966 companyferred power on the Central Government to extend by numberification with such restrictions or modifications as it thought fit any enactment which was in force in a State at the date of the numberification to the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
The Act i.e. the East Punjab Urban Restriction Act, 1949 was a law which had been enacted before the companymencement of the Constitution and companytinued to be in operation even after the companymencement of the Constitution in the erstwhile State of Punjab by virtue of the provisions of the Constitution.
By the Notification No.
Advocates For The Respondents P. Jagga C. Manchanda, P.R. Mridul, Harbanslal and P.A. Francis.
Shrinath Singh and A. Gupta.
352 LD 73/602 dated January 31, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Notification as modified by the Home Department Notification No.
B. Divan, H.K. Puri.
P. Bhatt, Ashok Mathur and Parveen Kumar.
With effect from November 1, 1966 i.e. the appointed day under section 4 of the said Act the Union Territory of Chandigarh came into existence and thereupon the said area ceased to from part of the erst while State of Punjab.
Whereas section 88 of that Act provided for the territorial extent of laws, section 89 dealt with the power to adapt laws, with the object of providing as far as possible for the companytinuity of laws in force in the several parts of the erstwhile State of Punjab in the successor States namely the States of Punjab and Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
But the Act had number been brought into force in the area companystituting the Union Territory of Chandigarh by the State Government of the erstwhile State of Punjab.
K. Bisaria.
M. Tarkunde and Anil.
K. Sabarwal.
M. Nayyar.
K. Goel.
The area number known as the Union Territory of Chandigarh was a part of the State of Punjab as it existed prior to the companying into force of the Punjab Reorganization Act.
Advocates for the Petitioners R. Kapur, Sanjiv Madon, S.R. Srivastava, D.D. Sharma, M. Ashri, Shankar Ghose, M s. D.P. Mukharji, G.S. Chatterjee, B.S. Shant, M.M. Kashyap, T.S. Arora, S.K. Ghambir, Shrinath Singh, A.P. Mohanti, Swaraj Kaushal, B. Kanta Rao and P.H. Parekh.
