Ranganathan, J. - (1.) This is a batch of appeals and writ petitions challenging the validity of a notification issued on 15-12-1986 by the Central Government under S. 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act (Act of Parliament No. 31 of 1966), hereinafter referred to as 'the Reorganisation Act'. By this notification, the Central Government purported to extend to the Union territory of Chandigarh - hereinafter referred to also as 'Chandigarh' - the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985 (Punjab Act 2 of 1985) (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1985 Act), as it was in force in the State of Punjab at the date of the notification and subject to the modifications mentioned in the .said notification. The Punjab and Haryana High Court by its judgment in Ramesh Birch v. Union, AIR 1988 Punj and Har 281 (FB), upheld the validity of the above notification and hence the special leave petitions. The writ petitions have been directly filed in this Court challenging the validity of the notification. In view of the importance of the question involved, we have heard the parties on the merits of the cases. We, therefore, grant special leave in, the special leave petitions and rule nisi in the writ petitions and proceed to dispose of the appeals and the writ petitions by this common judgment.
(2.) Section 87 of the Reorganisation Act is in the following terms: "87. Power to extend enactment to Chandigarh - The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend with such restrictions or modifications as it thinks fit, to the Union territory of Chandigarh any enactment which is in force in a State at the date of the notification." There are other provisions of this Act which will be referred to later. But it is necessary to refer to S. 87 here for a specific purpose and that is to point out that the provisions of S. 87 are pari materia with the provisions of S. 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912 and S. 2 of the Ajmer Merwara (Extension of Laws) Act, 1947, which, for convenience, we shall refer to as Act 1 and Act 11 respectively. These provisions read as follows: "Section 7 of Act I:The provincial Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend with such restrictions and, modifications as it thinks fit, to the Province, of Delhi or any part thereof, any enactment which is in force in any part of British India at the date of such notification." "Section 2 of Act II:The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend to the province of Ajmer Merwara with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit any enactment which is in force in any other province at the date of such notification.". It is also necessary here to contrast the above two provisions with S. 2 of the Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to, for purposes of. convenience, as Act Ill). That provision reads as follows: "Section 2 of Act III:The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend. to any 'Part C State (other than Coorg and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands) or any part of such State, with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit, any enactment which is in force in a Part A, State at the date of the notification and provision may be made in any enacement so extended for the repeal or amendment of an corresponding law (other than a- Central Act) which is for the time being applicable to that Part C State."
(3.) The reference to these provisions is being made at this stage because the validity of S. 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912 and S. 2 of Ajiner Merwara (Extension of Laws) Act 1947 were upheld by this Court in the decision reported as In re Delhi Laws Act, (1951) SCR 747 . The decision also upheld the validity of the first part of S. 2 of Act 111 but struck down the second part of that provision (underlined above) as vitiated by the vice of excessive delegation. A good .deal of the arguments addressed before us naturally turned on the ratio and effect of the decision of this Court in the Delhi Laws Act case (supra) but, before turning to the arguments, it is necessary to give a brief history of S. 87, the interpretation of which is presently in question.;