Petitioner: Mangal Singh and another
Respondent: Union of India
Decided on:17.11.1966
Statutes Referred:
- The Constitution of India,1949
- The Punjab Reorganisation Act,1966
Facts:
- In the above case in 1966 the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 carved out old State of Punjab into two new State, Punjab and Haryana, and transferred some area to Himachal Pradesh and Constituted as Chandigarh, the Old state had a Bicameral legislature and so Also the new State of Punjab but Haryana is to be unicameral legislature.
- Under the Act the Legislative Assembly of Haryana is to consist of only 54 members; members of the Legislative Council of the old State belonging to Haryana area are unseated, while those members residing in the Union Territory of Chandigarh continue to be members of the Legislative Council of that new State of Punjab.
- The appellants, none of whom was a sitting member of the Legislative Council of the old State, challenged the legality of the Act in a writ petition.
Contention of Parties:
Petitioner:
- The Petitioner contented that the Constitution of Legislative Assembly of Haryana which departs from the Minimum Membership prescribed to the State legislative assembly violates the Mandatory provision of the article 170(1) of the Constitution.
- They also contented that members of the Legislative Council of the old State residing in the Union Territory of Chandigarh shall continue to sit in the Legislative Council in the new State of Punjab and by enacting that the members elected to the Legislative Council from the Haryana area shall be unseated, there was denial of equality.
Judgment:
The apex court through SHAH, J.C. RAO, K. SUBBA (CJ) SIKRI, S.M. RAMASWAMI, V. VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.
(17/11/1966) held the Following:
- The court held that there is no discrimination in unseating members from the Haryana Area of which appellants could complain.
- The appellants were not the sitting members of the Legislative Council of the old State and no personal right of the appellants was infringed by unseating those members.
- A resident of the State of Haryana merely because of that character, cannot claim to sit in the Punjab Legislative Council. By allowing the members from the Chandigarh area to continue to remain members of the new State of Punjab no right of the residents of Haryana was violated. Hence the appeal was dismissed by the Court.
Rule of Law:
The provision of the law which was under scrutiny by the Hon’ble court of India was that weather Constitution of the Legislative Assembly of Haryana by s. 1 3(1) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, violates the mandatory provisions of Art.
Conclusion:
In Conclusion it could be said that this case is a good example for Article 2,3 and 4 of the Constitution of India. In the Above case it was held that the Rights of the appellant has not been infringed and hence the Case was dismissed by the court.