CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(1977) 07 SHI CK 0009

Bakshi Pratap Singh vs The State of Himachal Pradesh and Another

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 18 July 1977 · Citation: (1977) 6 ILR HP 398

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.S. Pathak, C.J · T.U. Mehta, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 68 of 1977

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 338 words

R.S. Pathak, C.J.—The Petitioner was appointed Vice-Chairman of the National Savings State Advisory Board, Himachal Pradesh by an order dated July 17, 1972. The appointment was to subsist up to February 28, 1973. The period of the appointment was extended from time to time, the last extension being intended to last up to February 28, 1978. However, on June 8, 1977, the President of India abolished the National Savings State Advisory Board, Himachal Pradesh, with immediate effect. On June 15, 1977, the Himachal Pradesh Government informed the Petitioner that consequent upon the abolition of the aforesaid Advisory Board the Petitioner would no longer be a member of the Board with effect from June 8, 1977. The Board appears to have been reconstituted again on June 15, 1977. On July 6, 1977, the Himachal Pradesh Government issued a notification stating that "consequent on the reconstitution" of the Board the Petitioner had ceased to be Vice-Chair man. By this writ petition the Petitioner prays for the quashing of that order.

2.

The contention of the Petitioner is that although the Board was abolished on June 8, 1977, he continues to be Vice-Chairman of the Board. We are unable to appreciate this contention. The post of Vice-Chairman of the National Savings State Advisory Board could exist only so long as the Board was not abolished. On June 8, 1977, the Board stood abolished with immediate effect. With the abolition of the post, the term of office of the Petitioner also stood terminated. The order dated July 6, 1977, speaks of the "reconstitution of the Board". When the Board was abolished by the order dated June 8, 1977, the "reconstitution of the Board" can only mean a fresh creation of the Board. The order dated July 6, 1977, saying that the Petitioner had ceased to be Vice-Chairman must be construed to mean that he holds no office on the new Board as his appointment stood terminated with the previous Board.

3.

There is no force in this writ petition. It is rejected.