MADAN TARLOK SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 3759 of 1968 and 470 of 1969. Both these cases were referred to a Full Bench by Harbans Singh and S. S. Sandhawalia, JJ. That is how, these cases have been placed before us for disposal.

(2.) INITIALLY, three points were urged before the Division Bench, namely:-- (

(3.) BEFORE dealing with these contentions, it will be necessary to set out the preliminary facts: The Professions Tax Act was passed by the Punjab Legislature in the year 1956. This Act was validly passed by the Punjab Legislature in view of the provisions of Article 276 of the Constitution of India read with Entry No. 60, List II, schedule Seventh of the Constitution of India. It is by reason of the subsequent events that the present controversy has arisen. The erstwhile State of Punjab, as it existed prior to 1966, was reorganized, with the result, that part of its territories was transferred to Himachal Pradesh; another part of its territories formed a new state of Haryana and certain territories around Chandigarh and Including the town of Chandigarh were declared as Union Territory of Chandigarh. This was effected by the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the reorganisation Act ). This Act came into effect on the 1st of November, 1966. This act is divided into ten parts. Part II deals with the reorganisation of the State of punjab and Part X, with which we are concerned, deals with Legal and miscellaneous Provisions. The relevant provisions in this part are Sections 87, 88, 89 and 90. These provisions are reproduced below for facility of reference:-" 87.-- Power to extend enactments to Chandigarh:-- The Central government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend with such restrictions or modifications, as it thinks fit, to the Union territory of chandigarh any enactment which is in farce in a State at the date of the notification.