ORDER

Jasti Chelameswar, J.

1. I.A. No. 5 of 2014 in Original Suit No. 1 of 2012 is filed by the Plaintiff, the State of Jharkhand in the above-mentioned suit.

2. In the said suit, the Plaintiff prayed inter-alia;

"b. Declare and hold that the basis of "ratio of number of employees of each successor State" for apportionment of pension liability contained in Clause 4 of the Eight Schedule to the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India, or, in the alternative, to read down the aforesaid words contained in Clause 4 of the Eight Schedule to the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 to mean "population ratio".”

3. By Act No. 30 of 2000 by the Parliament, the State of Jharkhand is brought into existence by carving out certain areas from the territory of the State of Bihar as it existed on that date. The Act is titled Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. As necessary sequel to the bifurcation, provisions were required to be made with reference to the various aspects of the rights and liabilities of the State of Bihar as well as the newly formed State of Jharkhand. One of the provisions dealt with the apportionment of the pensionary liabilities of the former employees of the original State of Bihar.

4. I.A. No. 5 is filed seeking certain amendments to the original suit.

it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to permit amendment of the Original Suit No. 1 of 2012 titled "State of Jharkhand v. State of Bihar and Another" as per aforesaid paragraphs and pass an order or orders which may be deemed fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.

5. When the matter was taken up, a preliminary objection is raised by the State of Bihar to the maintainability of the suit, relying on a decision of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Union of India and Anr. (2011) 12 SCC 268. According to the State of Bihar, the suit on hand which in substance seeks an examination of the constitutionality of certain provisions of Act 30 of 2000 is not maintainable for the reason that a question of vires of an enactment cannot be examined in an original suit Under Article 131, but could only be examined in the proceeding Under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

6. The relied upon judgment was rendered in an Interlocutory Application in Original Suit No. 6 of 2004 filed Under Article 131 of the Constitution of India before this Court. The said I.A. was filed by the Plaintiff-State of Madhya Pradesh wherein the State sought to amend the plaint prayinginter alia certain sections of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

7. The State of Chhattisgarh "objected to the amendment on the ground that the same is totally misconceived and untenable in law and no recourse whatsoever is permitted to challenge the validity of a central law under the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court Under Article 131 of the Constitution of India."

8. By the said judgment, this Court held as follows:

20. By way of the present amendment, the Plaintiff State of M.P. is seeking to challenge the validity of the Central law in a proceeding (suit) initiated Under Article 131 of the Constitution. Normally, for questions relating to validity of Central or other laws, the appropriate forum is the extraordinary writ jurisdiction Under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India in a writ petition and not an original suit filed Under Article 131 which vests exclusive jurisdiction on this Court as regards the disputes enumerated therein. It is relevant to point out that Article 131-A of the Constitution inserted by the Constitution inserted by the Constitution (forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, provides for exclusive jurisdiction to this Court in regard to questions as to constitutionality of Central laws. The said Article 131-A viewed as substantially curtailing the power of judicial review of the writ courts, that is, the High Courts Under Ar