D.S. Tewatia, J. - (1.) THE Appellant Union of India has sought the quashing of the order, dated 31st October, 1979 of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Chandigarh, whereby he made,' the award, dated 14th December, 1977, given by Shri Y.L. Subramanyam, Superintending Engineer, rule of the Court and dismissed the objections of the Union of India.
(2.) BEFORE adverting to the grounds of attack against the said t order and the award in question, we have first to take note of the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the Respondents to the maintainability of the present appeal. The first objection to the maintainability of the appeal that has been canvassed before us is that Shri R.K. Chhibbar, Advocate who has presented the appeal on behalf of the Union of India, was not competent to do so, as he was not duly authorised in this behalf It has been maintained that Shri R.K. Chhibbar had been authorised to file the appeal by the Legal Remembrancer, Union Territory Chandigarh, who himself had no authority to do so the case not pertaining to the Union Territory Administration but to the Defence Department of the Government of India, which was an entity separate and distinct from the Union Territory Administration.
(3.) MR . Chhibbar, learned Counsel for the Appellant, does not dispute the proposition that the Union Territory Administration is distinct from the Central Government or any of its departments. He, however, argues that he has been duly authorised to present the appeal. In this regard, he places reliance on G.S.R. No. 1412, dated 25th November, 1960, published in the Government Gazette, dated 3rd December, 1960 and Sections 32 and 88 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. The relevant portion of the aforesaid G.S.R. is in the following terms: G.S.R. 1412. - -In exercise of the power conferred by Clause (a) of Rule 8B of Order XXVII of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Law No. S.R.O. 3920, dated the 5th December, 1957, the Central Government hereby appoints the person specified in the second column of the Schedule annexed hereto as Government Pleaders for the purposes of the said Order in relation to any suit by or against the Central Government, not being a suit (other than a suit in the City Civil Court, Calcutta) relating to - - 1. ... ... ... to 13. ... ... ... or against a public officer in the service of the Central Government in any Court specified in the first column of the said Schedule. SCHEDULE JUDGEMENT_48_LAWS(P&H)7_1980.htm Sections 32 and 88 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, are as follows: 32. Subject to the provisions of this Part, the law in force immediately before the appointed day with respect to practice and procedure in the High Court of Punjab shall, with the necessary modifications, apply in relation to the common High Court. 88. The provisions of Part II shall not be deemed to have effected any change in the territories to which any law in force immediately before the appointed day extends or applies and territorial references in any such law to the State of Punjab shall, until otherwise provided by a competent Legislature or other competent authority, be construed as meaning the territories within that state immediately before the appointed day. It has been contended by Mr. Chhibbar that the notification mentioned above whereby the Punjab Government pleaders were appointed by the Government of India for the purposes of Order 27, Code of Civil Procedure, was a law for the purpose of Sections 32 and 88 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, hereinafter referred to as the Act. He submits that he was appointed a Government Pleader of the Union Territory of Chandigarh. It has been contended by him that presentation of appeal and pleadings pertains to the practice and procedure of the High Court. Order 27, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, provides as to who could appear, act and make application on behalf of the Government under the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 32 of the Reorganisation Act envisages that the law dealing with the practice and procedure of the High Court of Punjab that was in force immediately before the appointed day, that is, 1st November, 1966, would continue to apply in relation to the common High Court of the Punjab and Haryana. Clause (a) of Rule 8B of Order 27, which is in the following words, defines the expression 'Government Pleader' to be one who is appointed as such by a general or special order for the purposes of Order 27, Code of Civil Procedure: 8 -B. In this Order unless otherwise expressly provided 'Government' and 'Government pleader' means respectively - - (a) in relation to any suit by or against the Central Government or against a public officer in the service of that Government, the Central Government and such pleader as that Government may appoint whether generally or specially for the purposes of this order;;