SURAJ PARKASH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following notification by the Local Government Department (Committees) dated May 16, 1966 was published on May 17, 1966, in the Punjab Government Gazette Extraordinary :-

(2.) Suraj Parkash, claiming to be a Municipal Commissioner, Simla, in the superseded Committee, is the sole petitioner in C.W. Petition No. 42 of 1967. This petition was presented in the High Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab at Chandigarh on June 30, 1966, before the reorganisation of that State, and it was registered in that High Court as Writ Petition No. 1492 of 1966. The State of Punjab, through the Secretary, Local Self Government Punjab at Chandigarh, was impleaded as respondent No. 1, Shri Ajmer Singh, Minister for Local Self Government, Punjab as respondent No. 2 and the Deputy Commissioner, Simla, as respondent No. 3. On 15th July, 1966, the Motion Bench of the Punjab High Court consisting of Mehar Singh C.J. and D.K. Mahajan, J. admitted this Writ petition by the following order :-

(3.) The other Writ petition (C.W. No. 44 of 1967) seems to have been presented in the Punjab High Court on 18th June, 1966 on behalf of 9 petitioners, namely, (i) The Municipal Committee, Simla, through its President, Shri A.N. Dogra, (ii) Shri A.N. Dogra, President, Municipal Committee, Simla, (iii) Shri Tilak Ram Sharma, (iv) Shri Sawan Lal Sharma, (v) Shri Kishori Lal, (vi) Shri Suraj Parkash, (vii) Shri Brij Lal, (viii) Shri G. Parkash Sood and (ix) Shri Bir Singh. Petitioners Nos. 3 to 9 are presumably also members of the superseded Municipal Committee. In this Writ petition, the State of Punjab and the Administrator, Simla Municipality, Simla, are the only respondents. This petition was registered in the Punjab High Court as C.W. No. 1281 of 1966. The prayer for stay made in C.M. No. 2168 of 1966 in this Writ petition was declined by the Vacation Judge (Jindra Lal, J.) on 20th June, 1966, it being left open to the petitioners to repeat the prayer before the Motion Bench. On 15th July, 1966. Th petition was heard in limine by the same Motion Bench which heard the other writ petition and both the cases were directed to be heard together.