RAJ KUMAR RAJINDRA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a miscellaneous petition by the respondents to the writ petition praying that the interim order already made in the case be modified and appropriate orders be passed safeguarding the interest of the State during the pendency of the writ petition. Similar miscellaneous petitions have been made in the connected writ petitions.

(2.) In all these writ petitions, this Court has either made an order restraining the respondents from taking further proceedings under the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling Land Holdings Act, 1972 for the determination of the surplus area or an order permitting the proceedings to continue but restraining tine making of the final order determining the surplus area or, in some cases, an order merely restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioners from the surplus area. The learned Advocate General prays that during the pendency of the writ petitions the proceedings for the determination of the surplus area upto and including the order determining the surplus area may be allowed to be completed and, he says, he would raise no objection to an order by this Court restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioners from the surplus area. At the same time he urges that while making this order of restraint against the respondents, the Court should Impose a condition in appropriate terms restraining the petitioners from taking any steps to change the nature of the land, cut and remove the standing trees and generally to damage or alienate the land or any property thereon affected by the provisions of the Act to the pre-judice and detriment of the State.

(3.) A preliminary objection has been taken by the petitioners. It is submitted that by virtue of the Presidential Order dated June 28, 1975, made under Article 359 (1) of the Constitution, all, proceedings pending in this Court for the enforcement of the right conferred by Article 14 are to remain suspended for the period of the Proclamation of Emergency made under Article 352 (1) of the Constitution on December 3, 1971 and on June 25, 1975. Our attention has also been invited to Article 358 of the Constitution which provides that while a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation nothing in Article 19 of the Constitution can restrict the powers of the State as defined in Part III of the Constitution to make any law or to take any executive action which the State would, but for the provisions contained in that Part, be competent to make or to take. The petitioners say that a miscellaneous petition for the grant of an interim injunction or for vacating an interim injunction already granted is a part of the proceedings pending in this Court for the enforcement of the rights of the petitioners under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution and, therefore, no order can be made by the Court vacating or modifying the interim injunction already granted. It is contended that in considering the grant of the interim relief it is necessary for the Court to examine whether the petitioners have a prima facie case on the merits, and that would involve, it is said, an adjudication of the eights of the petitioners under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.