NAVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition contains a prayer for quashing an amendment made to the State Legislation namely Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 as being in violation of Article 14, besides other relief's. At the time when the arguments were made on 29.5.2012, having regard to the High Court Rules requiring an adjudication regarding constitutional vires of a State Legislation to be placed only before a Division Bench for consideration, the counsel submitted that he was not pressing for consideration the challenge to the vires of the amending provisions and advanced arguments only as regards the other relief's. The arguments were heard and the judgment was reserved on 25.9.2012. However, this Court could not pronounce the judgment before closing of the Court before summer break. Therefore, it was posted for fresh hearing on 16.7.2012. The roster had since been changed and when the matter was brought before yet another Bench the Court had directed the matter to be placed before Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice to place it again before this Bench in view of the fact that arguments had been heard. When the matter was brought before Court again, the counsel argued that he was earlier giving up his prayer to challenge to the constitutional vires only to secure an early adjudication but since the order could not be passed after arguments, he would press for hearing on the constitutionality of the amendment of the State Act itself. Learned counsel contended that since no judgment had been pronounced with reference to the remaining relief's, he was not barred against withdrawing from the concession already made. I have considered the law on the subject and I am of the view that the counsel who gives a concession on the basis of which the Court delivers a judgment could not be permitted to argue again on such a concession at a later stage. However, there is no such bar on a party or a counsel withdrawing from a concession if no order had been passed by the Court as regards the other issues. I find therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to urge all points canvassed in the writ petition including the constitutionality of the amended provisions of the State enactments referred to above.

(2.) IF the petitioner were to be permitted to press for all the relief's then the matter cannot be heard by this Bench it has to go before the Division Bench. The matter be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders for posting it before a Bench of competent jurisdiction.