http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 47

PETITIONER:

RAMESH BIRCH & ORS. ETC.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/04/1989

BENCH:

RANGNATHAN, S.

BENCH:

RANGNATHAN, S.

MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)

CITATION:

1990 AIR 560 1989 SCR (2) 629

1989 SCC Supl. (1) 430 JT 1989 (2) 483

1989 SCALE (1)1489

ACT:

Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966: s. 87--Power to extend

enactments to Union Territory of Chandigarh--Delegation of

to the Executive--Validity of--Held, not a case of abdica-

tion or effacement of legislative power--Contains sufficient

declaration of guideline--Power to extend future laws and

amendments necessary corollary.

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act

1985-Extension of to Union Territory of Chandigarh by Cen-

tral Government Notification dated December 15, 1986--Valid-

ity of.

Constitution of India, Article 246(4)--Executive--Power

of adaptation by extension of laws to Union Territory of

Chandigarh by notification--Constitutional validity of.

Administrative Law: Central Government Notification

dated December 15, 1986--Extension of East Punjab Urban Rent

Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985 to Union Territory of

Chandigarh--Nature and scope of--Whether suffers from vice

of impermissible delegation.

HEADNOTE:

Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 empow-

ered the Central Government to extend, with such restric-

tions and modifications as it thought fit, to the Union

Territory of Chandigarh any enactment which was in force in

a State at the date of the notification. Section 89 provided

for adaptation and modification by the appropriate Govern-

ment of any law made before the appointed day, whether by

way of repeal or amendment, for application in relation to

the State of Punjab or Haryana or to the Union Territory of

Himachal Pradesh or Chandigarh before the expiration of two

years. The State of Punjab, of which the Union Territory of

Chandigarh originally formed part, was then governed by the

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Section 2(j)

of that Act defined ’urban area’ as any area administered by

a municipal committee, a cantonment board, a town committee,

or a notified area committee or any area declared by the

State Government by notification to be an urban area for the

purposes of the Act.

630

The Central Government had issued under s. 89 of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 47

Reorganisation Act, the Punjab Reorganisation (Chandigarh)

(Adaptation of Laws on State and Concurrent Subjects) Order,

1968 with effect from 1st November, 1966 Paragraph 4 of

which directed that in all the existing laws, in its appli-

cation to the Union Territory of Chandigarh, any reference

to the State of Punjab should be read as a reference to the

Union Territory of Chandigarh. In exercise of the power

conferred by s. 2(j) of the Rent Act, the Central Government

had also issued on 13th October, 1972 a notification declar-

ing the area comprising Chandigarh to be an "urban area" for

the purpose of that Act.

This notification was, however, quashed by the High

Court in Harkishan Singh v. Union, AIR 1975 P & H 160, on

the ground that no notification had been issued prior to 1st

November, 1966 under s. 2(j) declaring Chandigarh to be an

urban area, and there was no notification under s. 87 making

the 1949 Act operative in Chandigarh with the necessary

adaptation. Thereupon, Parliament enacted the East Punjab

Urban Rent Restriction (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974.

Section 3 of that Act extended to Chandigarh the 1949 Act

subject to modifications specified in the schedule with

retrospective effect from 4th November, 1972 with a view to

regularies all proceedings for eviction which might have

been initiated during the interregnum. These included a

modification of the definition of