^- L;-: XI-HC-22 -3^ ^TPTI^T, i^ft^FR^ I^TRT^? W.P.Np'. 577/2001 ' "•|:"""""""""M 200 W^T^T 'f^:ri??3T!^T ^HNTTrfN 03-4-2001 ^lt^I^T^R'^T State. Heard^ ^N^ft^ 'WT^f ^ fezt Tf^K ^T 3Tf^R 3:n^I Shri B.K.Rawat, learned c(ounsel for the petitioner* Dr.N.K.Shukla, learried B^puty Advocate General, for the CT^>^. Learned counsel for the of Section 74 of the M.P.Reoi Sransport Appellate Tribunal ^annot function in relation t< Chhattisgarh region unless b; State of M.P* and the State conferred upon the said auth Dr^N.K^Shuklay learned B^puty Advocate Generalf on the other hand^ placing hisstro^ig rellance upon an ^rder dated 28-3-2001 passed in W.P question has already been con Court and the same does not n as unders- "74. Jurisdiction of t4 and Tribunals»-(1] contained in any 3|. letitioner submits that in vicAT 'ganisation Act 2000y the State constituted by the State o£ W^P^ the cases which arise from ^ mutual agreement between the >f Chhattisgarh, the powers are >rity. •No.171/2001, submits that the Isidered by a single bench o£ this eed reconsideration, Shri Rawat in reply sutanjits that the question raised by him was not raised ln the sajid petition, therefore, the Detition deserves admission^ Section?4 of the M.P.^eorganisationAct 2000 reads e Commissionsy Authorities Notwithstanding anythirig aw for the time beir^g in force [•T^tfeq- ss^s—^—- ^ a^yr ^^.€ts( ^I^^T) ^i^?T ^)T 1^w '^^r ^:Tr^"^t^ 3?i^TT^T?r<^{t?T ^N-^frT ^TR^ff ^ fs-^t TTWZR ^T •3TF?1?T ^^ -{-•: every Commission^j Authority^ Tribunal^ University^ Board or any other body constituted under a Central Act^ State Act orj Provincial Act and havir^ jurisdic- tion over the exijsting State of Nadhya Pradesh shall on and from the appointed day continue to function In the successor Sjtate of Madhya Pradesh and also exercise jurisdicjtion as existed before the appointed day over the Stat| periodof two yea| such period as isj ^ of Chhattisgarh for a mteimum rs from the appointed day or till decided by mutual agreement betweei^ the successor StaSbes<.18 Learned Counsel forl the Commission Authorit- any other body constitut the petitioner submits that , Tribunal, University, Board or jed under a central Act, State Act or provincial Act which had jurisdiction in the United State of M<P», may have jurisda-ction over the matters arising from 1 Chhattisgarh region provi^ied there is a mutual agreement betwe- en the two States con£er|"ing powers upon the said authority. The argument raised by tiie learned counsel for the petitioner runs contrary to the ver^ spirit of section 74 of the Re-organisation Act. Seption 74 does not say that the authorify shall continuei to fuHction in both the Stat e only on a mutual agFeement between the States,. In fact^ section 74 says that thej said authority shall have jurisdic- tion to exerctse its powe^s for a minimum period of two years from the appoin'fced date pr till such period as is decided by mutual agreement betwe^n the successor Stiates. A plain and simplejlanguage is to be interpreted in the plain manner. A ^imple interpretation of the language aB@d-±w~-srctionT4 woal7t^ean~^taat"^TTabsence~'a^^^^ qthi m r ^ XI-HC-22 ZTl^T-^' f^N'3^1 ^^TN:5"??f^n ^"^ ^Tpn^R, ^'OT^, f^rre^i "^T-i 200 agreement the said authorj period o£ two years. If xs to be extended furtherl agreement is requirede has been arriTed at betwefen reduce the period or :reement redujs -^e mutual XV^o-^fcch- any fius^tber periody it mutual agreement the OTer the matters arising Lty shall have jurisdiction for a ^he period is to be reduced or then, in such a case a mutual O^idisputedly, no mutual agreement etwefen the successor States either to the period^ In absence Q£^^y ^ing the period from two years to cajanot be held that in absenoe of a auth^rity^ shall have no giirisdiction |Crom Chhattisgarh State. extejad I find no reason to free to approach the STATj hear and decide the matter] files an appeal/revision todayg, 'the question of limj to be raised by anybody Tribunal is forewarned cases arising from o£ misinterpretation o£ Act^ then» the said contempt of the lawful ^Rf^FTh 'WToTf ^ fg'CZt'''<f^RZR ^T 3TP^R 3TI^T .nterfere. The petitioner is Gwalior who shall be aobliged to on meritse If the petitioner ^ithin a period of 10 days from .tation shall aot be allowed ijncluding the Tribunal. The if it refuses to hear the State under the pretext jSection 74 of the M.P.Re-organisatior on its part shall be deemed to be o£ this Court. thlat Qihatt|isgarh refu^l aut^ority The petition is di^osed o£ with the aforesaid ^ IIre'tfEIonT""^"11^"" ,.\v^^^ Sd/- R.S. Garg Judge l^^fa^