LAWS(P&H)-1968-10-14

KARTAR SINGH VAID Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On October 03, 1968
KARTAR SINGH VAID Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by Kartar singh Vaid, challenging the legality of a notification dated 7-3-1968 issued by the governor of the Punjab in exercise of the powers conferred on him by sub-section (6) of Section 3 of the Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani ;practitioners Act, 1963 (hereinafter called the Act), constituting an interim board of Ayurvedic and Unani system of Medicines Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the Board ).

(2.) THE petitioner is a Vaid practising on the Ayurvedic side at Ambala Cantonment for the last so many years. He is registered under the Act. His grievance is that after the coming into force of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, the State of punjab, respondent No. 3, alone had no authority in law to constitute the Board by appointing a number of persons mentioned in the impugned notification, because its jurisdiction now extended to the territories which were comprised in the State of Punjab, Haryana, Union territory of Chandigarh and the territory transferred to himachal Pradesh, State of Punjab alone had no jurisdiction to nominate Kanwar moti Singh and five others, respondents 6 to 11, as the members of the Board and r. N. Bhardwaj, respondent No. 12 as the Registrar of the Board, for exercising powers under the Act outside the jurisdiction of respondent No. 3. There is, according to the petitioner, no procedure laid down in the Act or in the punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, for the selection or nomination of the members of the Board by the respective Governments. In any case, the nomination or the selection should have been done in consultation with the Governments of the various States after getting the approval of the Central Government. The petitioner fulfils all the qualifications laid down under the Act for his appointment as a members of the Board. He approached the various authorities in that connection, but the Board was constituted without listening to him.

(3.) ACCORDING to Section 1 (3) of the Act, it had to come into force on such date as the State Government might, by notification, appoint. On 4th of February 1964, a notification was issued by the Governor of Punjab, appointing that very date as the date on which the Act would come into force. Under Section 3 (6) of the Act, until the Board was established and constituted in accordance with the provisions of section 3, sub-sections (1) to (5), the State Government was authorised to constitute a Board consisting of six persons ;and the Board so constituted had to continue for a period not exceeding one year from the commencement of the Act and the said Board was to carry out all the provisions of the Act. By a notification of the State Government, such a Board was constituted on 2nd of March, 1964. The life of this Board had to end on 3rd of February, 1965 i. e. within one year from the date of the commencement of the Act, namely 4th of February, 1964. However, by the Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners (Amendment and validation) Act (Act 15 of 1965), sub-section (6) of Section 3 of the Act was amended and the life of the Board was extended to 2 years. That meant that the board constituted on 2nd of March, 1964, could go up to 3rd of February, 1966. After that date, i. e. on 1st of November, 1966, on which date the Punjab reorganisation Act, 1966, came into force, there was no Board functioning in the state of Punjab. Section 72 (1) of that Act was as follows: "save as otherwise expressly provided by the foregoing provisions of this part, where any body corporate constituted under a Central Act, State act or Provincial Act for the existing State of Punjab or any part thereof serves the needs of the successor States or has, by virtue of the provisions of Part II, become an inter-State body corporate, then the body corporate shall, on and from the appointed day, continue to function and operate in those areas in respect of which it was functioning and operating immediately before that day, subject to such directions as may from time to time be issued by the Central Government, until other provision is made by law in respect of the said body corporate". This provision would have applied if the Board constituted by the State of Punjab had been functioning and operating on the appointed day i. e. 1-11-1966. But as I have already said, the Board constituted by respondent No. 3 had come to an end on 3rd of February, 1966, and ceased to function thereafter. This was also so stated in the return filed by the respondents. If it had been alive, then it might have been governed by the provisions of Sections 67 to 72 of the Punjab reorganisation Act, 1966, Section 89 of the Punjab Re-organisation Act said:-