S RAVINDER SINGH KALEKA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the threshold of the portals of the Court, the very locus standi of the 23 writ petitioners to enter is frontally assailed on behalf of the respondents in this set of five cases. For the limited purpose of this motion order, it seems unnecessary to advert to the facts in any great detail. Suffice it to mention that the significant constitutional and even national issues sought to be raised in these writ petitions infer alia are:-

(2.) Apart from the pristinely legal issues, what is substantially at stake herein is the allocation of the waters of Ravi and Beas primarily betwixt the States of Punjab and Haryana. Though the challenge herein goes back to the Award of the Prime Minister notified on March 24, 1976, under S. 78, Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1988 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), subsequent agreement betwixt the States of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan of 31-12-1981, is more pointedly under attack.

(3.) Now it was not disputed before us that the issue of locus standi has primarily to be adjudged on the pleadings in the writ petitions end the basic lis and the primarily issues raised therein. Herein, an assiduous attack is first launched on the constitutionality of Section 78 of the Act itself. Indeed, the very competence of Parliament to enact this Section is challenged as being beyond entry 56 of List I of the seventh Schedule to the Constitution and being wholly within entry 17 of List II thereof. That being the position, there is no gain-saving the fact that the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution is indeed the proper if not the only forum for raising the. issue of the constitutionality and competence of Parliament to enact S. 78 of the Act. Indeed, the learned counsel for the respondents very fairly did not seriously controvert this position. It seems to be somewhat plain that ordinarily no legal bar can be raised and no specific provision could be pleaded before us which can forbid the writ petitioners to out into issue-the very validity of S. 78 of the Act. It follows, therefore, that if S. 78 of the Act is applicable or attracted in the circumstances, then the writ jurisdiction is the forum for seeking such a remedy.