State of H.P. and ors. Vs. Mahendra Pal and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- [k. ramaswamy and; n.p. singh, jj.] - constitution of india — articles. 226 and 142 — power of high court under article. 226 to restrain implementation of impugned act — whether power comparable to article. 142 available to high court — vires of himachal pradesh kutlehar forest (acquisition of management) act, 1992 challenged in writ petition — pending disposal of writ petition high court restraining state government from enforcing the provisions of the act -- this appeal is directed against the order of the high court dated september 25, 1992 restraining the state government of himachal pradesh from enforcing the himachal pradesh kutlehar forest (acquisition of management) act, 1992. suffice to state that this court while exercising the power under article 142 suspended the operation of gudalur jarmam estates (abolition & conversion of ryotwari) act (24 of 1969) which power is not available to the high courts. the validity, as stated earlier, is the subject-matter of the writ petition.k. ramaswamy and; n.p. singh, jj.1. delay condoned.2. leave granted. this appeal is directed against the order of the high court dated september 25, 1992 restraining the state government of himachal pradesh from enforcing the himachal pradesh kutlehar forest (acquisition of management) act, 1992. shri thakur, learned senior counsel for respondents has contended, placing reliance on the judgment of this court in balmadies plantations ltd. v. state of t.n.1 that the court is justified in issuing direction not to implement the provisions of the act. he seeks to contend on merits with regard to the validity of the act and also right to continue the management of the forest. we decline to go into the merits since admittedly the matter is part-heard and pending disposal in the high court. any observation by this court would have effect on the rights and interest of either party. suffice to state that this court while exercising the power under article 142 suspended the operation of gudalur jarmam estates (abolition & conversion of ryotwari) act (24 of 1969) which power is not available to the high courts. therefore, the high court is not justified in restraining the state government from implementing the provisions of the act passed by the legislature. the validity, as stated earlier, is the subject-matter of the writ petition. as far as the management of the forest is concerned, under the act the state government is to undertake its management. it is stated across the bar that some trees are to be cut and to be sold by the forest corporation. since the matter is part-heard, the state government is directed not to cut and sell the trees which it takes over from the respondent pending disposal of the writ petition in the high court. if any further directions are needed, it is open to the parties to approach the high court for appropriate directions.3. the appeal is allowed. no costs.