31 and 52 of 1964 .
S. Chawla and R. V. S. Mani, for intervener No.
K. Khanna and R. N. Sachthey, for respondents Nos.1 to 3 in W. P. No.
81 of 1964 .
54 of 1964 .
K. Daphtary, Attorney General, R. K. P. Shankardass and H. Dhebar, for respondent No.
was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR C.J. HIDAYATULLAH and J. R. MUDHOLKAR JJ.
50 1964 .
54 of 1964 .
K. Khanna and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent in P. No.
The Judgment of P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR C.J., K. , N. WANCHOO and RAGHUBAR DAYAL JJ.
Gopalakrishnan, for the petitioners in W.P. Nos.
1 W. P. No.
81 and 82 1964 .
81 and 82 of 1964 .
82 of 1964 .
V. S. Mani, for the petitioners in W. P. Nos.
1 in W. P. No.
This decision was pronounced on December 5, 1961.
Some other parties who are similarly affected by other Acts added to the 9th Schedule by the impugned Act, have intervened at the hearing of these writ petit ions, and they have joined the petitioners in companytending that the impugned Act is invalid.
31 of 1964 only and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent in W. P. Nos.
50 of 1964 .
K. Daphtary, Attorney General and R. H. Dhebar, for the Union of India.
C. Setalvad, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for intervener No.
Dipak Dutta Chaudhuri and A. K. Nag, for the petitioners in W. P. No.
31 and 52 of 1964 .
S. Pathak, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for intervener No.
K. Daphtary, Attorney General, B. Sen and R. H. Dhebar, for respondent No.
2 in W. P. Nos.
K. Mehta, K. L. Mehta, for the petitioners in W. P. No.
