CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 30 OF 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: October 17, 2008. Parties Name Resurgence India ..PETITIONER VERSUS State of Punjab and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH PRESENT: Mr. A.P.S. Shergil, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. H.S.Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Onkar Singh Batalvi, Central Government Standing Counsel, for respondent No. 4. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE (oral) JUDGMENT This petition has been filed in public interest. It makes a prayer for a direction striking down such of the provisions of the Punjab Police Act, 2007, as are contrary to the directions, issued by the Supreme Court in its order dated September 22, 2006, passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 310 of 1996, filed by Parkash Singh and others. When the petition came up before us on September 30, 2008, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 30 OF 2008 -2- Mr. Batalvi, counsel appearing for the Union of India pointed out that the Supreme Court had in its order dated May 16, 2008, passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 310 of 1996 directed the constitution of a Committee under the chairmanship of Justice K.T. Thomas, former Judge of the Supreme Court, to look into the new legislations enacted by different States regarding police and to see whether those legislations are in tune with the letter and spirit of the directions, issued by their lordships. It was also urged by Mr. Batalvi that in the light of the constitution of the said Committee, there was no room for any further direction by this Court in public interest. Mr. Shergil, appearing for the petitioner, had sought time to verify the position and make his submissions. The matter was accordingly adjourned to be taken up today for hearing on the above aspects. Mr. Batalvi has today placed on record a copy of an order dated April 28, 2008, in IAs Nos. 20-38 filed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 310 of 1996, by which orders on the said I.As. were reserved by their lordships after hearing counsel for the parties. Mr. Batalvi submits on the basis of communication dated September 1, 2008, received from Director (PMR), Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, that order dated May 16, 2008, referred to earlier, was pronounced in the said writ petition and the I.As. filed therein, constituting the Committee headed by Justice Thomas. He further submits that Justice Thomas has assumed the duties of the office, to which he has been appointed, although according to Mr. Shergil, the requisite infrastructure required for the Committee to function effectively has not been provided by the authorities concerned. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the challenge to the Punjab Police Act, 2007, proceeds entirely on the basis that some of the provisions contained therein are not in CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 30 OF 2008 -3- tune with the directions, issued by the Supreme Court in Parkash Singh's case, referred to earlier, and the Model Police Act proposed by the Central Government for enactment. Whether or not that is so, is a matter which is now being examined by the Committee, appointed by the Supreme Court under the chairmanship of Justice Thomas. It is obvious that the Supreme Court is seized of the matter and actively considering whether or not the police legislations by different States in the country are in accordance with the directions issued by their lordships in the writ petition mentioned earlier. That being so, we consider it unnecessary to examine the very same issue as is being considered by the Committee, referred to above. The proper course for the petitioner, who happens to be a Non-Governmental Organization, interested in bringing about reforms in police administration is to approach the Committee and participate in its deliberations and make its suggestions, subject to the norms and procedures, if any stipulated by the Committee for that purpose. Any exercise at the hands of this Court in a matter, which is being examined by the Supreme Court and the Committee constituted by it, is not only unnecessary but may result in confusion. We accordingly dispose of this writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek redress before the Committee and if need be, before the Supreme Court in the matter, pending before their lordships. The parties are left to bear their own costs. ( T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE (JASBIR SINGH) October 17 , 2008. JUDGE DKC