PRADEEP CHAUDHARY & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

                          [2009] 6 S.C.R. 112

A                 PRADEEP CHAUDHARY & ORS.
                                   V.
                     UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
               (Transfer Case (Civil) No. 62 of 2002)
                            MAY 05, 2009
B
             [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

         Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 3, proviso - State,
    re-organisation of - Formation of State of Uttranchal -
C   Reference of Bill to State Legislature of UP - Said Bill
    including only city of Haridwar - Amendment of Bill by
    Parliament - Reference to State Legislature - Resolution to
    exclude Haridwar - Inclusion of district of Haridwar in State
    of Uttaranchal by Parliament - Writ petition on the ground of
o   violation of proviso to Article 3 - Held: It is mandatory for the
    President to refer the Bill to Legislative Assembly for
    obtaining its views but Parliament would not be bound by the
    recommendations - Consultation would not mean
    concurrence but only means to ask or seek for the views -
E   Where substantive amendment is carried out, the amended
    Parliamentary Bill need not be referred to State Legislature
    again for obtaining its fresh views - Detailed discussions took
    place amongst members of State Legislative Assembly to
    exclude town of Haridwar - However, Central Government
F   opined that Bill should be introduced in the Parliament in the
    amended form - Hence, writ petitions dismissed - Uttar
    Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 - s. 3.

      The present matter is before this Court by the
  appellants-residents of the district of Haridwar,
G challenging the violation of the mandatory requirements
  envisaged under the proviso appended to Article 3 of the
  Constitution of India, 1950 while including the district of
  Haridwar in the State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand).

H                                 112
    PRADEEP CHAUDHARY & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 113
                    &ANR.
;
        Dismissing the writ petition, the Court                A
         HELD: 1.1. A bare perusal of Article 3 of the
    Constitution of India, 1950 would clearly show that
    formation of a new State by separation of territories from
    a State or by uniting two or more States or parts thereof
                                                                8
    is within the legislative domain of the Parliament. The
    proviso appended thereto postulates that (1) Bill may not
    be introduced except on the recommendations of the
    President; and (ii) where the proposal contained in the
    Bill affecting the areas, boundaries or name of any of the C
    State, reference of the Bill by the President to the
    Legislature of that State for expressing its views thereon;
    and (3) such views may be expressed within such period
    as may be specified in the reference or within such
    period as the President may allow and the period so
    specified or allowed has expired. [Para 12] [121-B-E]       D

          1.2. Prior to the changes introduced by Constitution
    (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1955, the proviso only required
    the President to ascertain the views of the Legislature of
    the State or States affected. The amendment, however, E
    widened the scope of the Bill which is to be referred by
    the President to the State Legislature. Indisputably, only
    because one or the other view had been expressed in the
    State Legislature, the same would not be binding upon
    the Parliament even if its views were received in time. F
    When, however, the views of the State Legislature were
    not received in time, the Parliament would be free to pass
    the Act in terms of the Bill or with amendment as it may
    deem fit and proper. A Bill has to be introduced in the
    Parliament. It is the Parliament's prerogative to place the G
    Bill in either of the Houses, either in the same form or with
    amendments. [Para 13 and 14] [121-F-H; 122-A]

         Durga Oas Basu's commentary on the Constitution of
    India 8th Edn. p.467, referred to
                                                               H
    114     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2009] 8 S.C.R.


A     1.3. Prior to the amendment in 1955, the views of the
  State Legislatures were to be ascertained not only with
  respect to proposal to the introduction of the Bill but also
  the provisions thereof, but then those words have been
  omitted in the amended proviso; the only requirement
B being a reference to Bill which comes within the purview
  of Article 3. Once such reference has been made, the
  ordinary rules of Parliamentary procedure shall govern
  the same. [Para 16] [122-D-E]

         1.4. The Legislature of the State of Uttar Pradesh
C   cannot be said to have been wholly unaware of the
    question as to whether the District of Haridwar was to be
    included in the proposed statute or not. From the
    proceedings of the debates held in the Uttar Pradesh
    State Legislative Assembly, it appears that one BS
D   categorically stated that he had with him a list of 250
    Pradhans, people from Haridwar and Udhamsingh Nagar,
    who had met the Prime Minister and wanted the said
    districts to merge with the new State and, thus, a
    question was asked as to how could it be said that the
E   residents of the said districts did not want them to be
    merged with the proposed State of Uttaranchal. Another
    member stated that while formation of Uttranchal is not
    in dispute; inclusion of Haridwar and exclusion of
    Udham Singh Nagar was different. One member also
F   stated that amendment introduced by the State
    Government show that Haridwar has been considered to
    be a part of Uttaranchal. It was pointed out by another
    member that in the earlier 13th Schedule, the entire
    District of Haridwar was to be included in Uttaranchal,
G   reiterating 'Haridwar was a central corridor for to and
    from movement'. AK, who was a Member of the State
    Assembly, filed a separate writ application as regard
    formation of Uttaranchal without Haridwar which was
    dismissed for default.[ Paras 18, 19 and 20] [123-G-H; 124-
H   A-C-E; 125-C-D]
    PRADEEP CHAUDHARY & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 115
                    & ANR.
         1.5. From the Constituent Assembly debates, it             A

-   appears that a motion to introduce the new proviso was
    discussed, according to a professor for the purpose of
    consulting the Legislature of the State name or
    boundaries whereof are proposed to be altered or which
    areas were proposed to be increased or decreased. [Para         B
    21) [125-F-G]

          1.6. The term 'consultation' means differently in
     different context. While a power to introduce the Bill is
     kept with the Parliament, consultation with the State          C
     Legislature although is mandatory but its
    recommendations were not binding on the Parliament.
     'Consultation' in a case of this nature would not mean
    concurrence. It only means to ask or seek for the views
    of a person on any given subject. The views of the State
    Legislature certainly would be taken into consideration         D
    but the same would not mean that the Parliament would
    be bound thereby. Substantive compliance of the said
    provision shall serve the purpose. What is mandatory is
    that the President may refer the Bill to the Legislative
    Assembly for obtaining its views and even in a case             E
    where substantive amendment is carried out, the
    amended Parliamentary Bill need not be referred to the
    State Legislature again for obtaining its fresh views.
    [Para 21) [125-G-H; 126-A-C]
                                                                    F
         1. 7. Detailed discussions have taken place amongst
    the members of the Legislative Assembly. They resolved
    to exclude even the town of Haridwar. However, the
    Central Government opined that the Bill should be
    introduced in the Parliament in the amended form. Thus,         G
    there is no merit in this application. [Para 22 and 23) [126-
    C-E]

        Babula/ Parate v. The State of Bombay and Anr. (1960)
                                                                    H
    116      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2009] 8 S.C.R.


A 1 SCR 605, followed.



          (1960) 1 SCR 605
                          Case Law Reference:

                                    Followed               Para 16
                                                                         -
B       CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transfer Case (c) No.
    62 of 2002.

          A. Sharan, ASG, Prashant Bhushan, Mayank Misra,
  Somesh Rattan, S. Wasim, A. Qadri, S.N. Terdal, P.
C Parmeshwaran, Sushma Suri, S.K. Dubedi, Savitri Pandey, G.
  Venkatesh Rao, Kamlendra Mishra for the appearing parties.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Constitutionality of the provisions of
0
    Section 3 of Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000
    (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity)
    whereby the district of Haridwar had been included in the State
    of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) is in question in this case.

E       2. Petitioners before us are residents of the district of
  Haridwar. They filed a writ application before the High Court
  of Judicature at Allahabad which was marked as Civil Writ
  Petition No.43094 of 2000. As several writ petitions were filed
  before this Court and several other writ applications involving
F similar questions were filed before different High Courts
  questioning similar provisions of Bihar State Reorganization Act
  whereby also some districts were included in the new State,
  transfer applications having been moved, the said writ petitions
  were withdrawn from the respective High Courts and transferred
G to this Court.

         Petitioners before us are residents of the district of
    Haridwar. They filed the writ applications, inter alia, on the
    premise that in including the district of Haridwar in the State of
H
     PRADEEP CHAUDHARY & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 117
                & ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
     Uttaranchal, mandatory requirements envisaged under the               A
     proviso appended to Article 3 of the Constitution of India has
     been violated.

          3. The said question arises in the following factual matrix
     involved in the matter :                                              B
           Indisputably, demands were raised for formation of the
      State of Uttaranchal wherefor a Committee known as Kaushik
     Committee was formed by the State Government for the
     purpose of making recommendations as to which areas of the
     existing State of UP should be included in the proposed State         c
     of Uttaranchal. Upon holding discussions with various segments
     of people, recommendations were made. The district of
     Haridwar allegedly was not included therein. However,
     concededly, the President of India by a notification proposed
-~   formation of the State of Uttranchal in the State Reorganisation      D
     Bill, 1999. In the said Bill, the district of Haridwar was included
     as one of the districts in the said proposed State. The said Bill
     was sent to the Legislature of the State of UP in terms of the
     proviso appended to Article 3 of the Constitution of India. Due
     to dissolution of 12th Lok Sabha, however, the said Bill abated.      E
     Upon constitution of the 13th Lok Sabha, a fresh Bill in terms
     of a Notification dated 4.2.2000 known as the Uttar Pradesh
     Reorganisation Bill, 2000 in regard to the proposed formation
     of the State of Uttranchal was sent to the State Legislature of
     UP for the purpose of obtaining its views. In terms of the said       F
     notification, views were to be sent by the State Legislature of
     UP by 16.3.2000.

         The said notification was in two parts.

         4. Section 3 of the aforementioned Bill reads as under :          G
r
         "3. On and from the appointed day, there shall be formed
         a new State to be known as the State of Uttranchal
         comprising the following territories of the existing State of
         Uttar Pradesh, namely:-
                                                                           H
    118          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2009] 8 S.C.R.


A          (a)    Pauri Garhwal, Tehri Garhwal, Uttar Kashi, Chamoli,
                  Dehradun, Nainital, Almora, Pitthoragarh, Udham
                  Singh Nagar, Bageshwar, Champawat and Rudra
                  Prayag District; and

B          (b)    The territories of Hardwar District specified in the
                  First Schedule of this Act."

       5. The Central Government, however, having regard to the
  fact that the First Schedule appended to the said Bill did not
  contain any particular, with a view to rectify the mistake, by a
C letter dated 10.3.2000 issued an amendment whereby the
  details to be mentioned in the First Schedule thereto were
  specified. It reads as under :

          "ALL AREAS COMING WITHIN THE TERRITORY
D         HARDWAR CITY"

       6. The said Bill was placed before the State Legislature
  of Uttar Pradesh on 30.3.2000. It came up for discussions on
  6.4.2000. A resolution was adopted that the areas of Haridwar,
  as specified in the First Schedule of the Bill should be deleted
E and should not form part of the State of Uttaranchal, stating :

          "Sub-section [Kha] of Section 3 and its connected First
          Schedule should be deleted and in its place, following
          Section should be placed; i.e. :-
F
          FORMATION OF UTIARANCHAL STATE ASSEMBLY

          3. On and from the appointed day, a new State shall be
          formed which will be known as the State of Uttaranchal; in
          which, the territories of Pauri Garhwal, Tehri Garhwal, Uttar
G         Kashi, Chamoli, Dehradun, Nainital, Almora, Pitthoragarh,
          Udham Singh Nagar, Bageshwar, Champawat and Rudhra
          Prayag Districts of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh will
          be included and thereafter, the aforesaid territories will not
          form a part of the existing State of U.P."
H
        PRADEEP CHAUDHARY & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 119
                   & ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
             7. The said Bill, however, was introduced in the Lok Sabha       A
        on 1.8.2000. Section 3 of the Bill introduced in the Lok Sabha
        included the District of Haridwar which reads as under :

             "On and from the appointed day, there shall be formed a
             new State to be known as the State of Uttaranchal;               B
             comprising the following territories of the existing State of
             Uttar Pradesh, namely:-

             [a] Pauri Garhwal, Tehri Garhwal, Uttar Kashi, Chamoli,
             Dehradun, Nainital, Almora, Pithhoragarh, Udham Singh
             Nagar, Bageshwar, Champawat and Rudhra Prayag and                c
             Hardwar Districts and thereupon, the said territories shall
             cease to form part of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh."

             8. Having been passed by the Lok Sabha, it was placed
        before the Rajya Sabha on 10.8.2000. However, an objection            D
        thereto was raised by one Shri' R.S. Kaushik as regards the
        inclusion of the District of Haridwar in the proposed State. The
        said Bill, however, was passed by the Rajya Sabha also. The
        President of India assented to the said Bill on 25.8.2000
        whereupon the Act known as the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization           E
        Act, 2000 came into force.

              9. The core contention of Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned
    •   counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, is that having
         regard to the proviso appended to Article 3 of the Constitution
        of India, the Schedule of the Bill having included only the city of   F
        Haridwar and not the entire District, it was impermissible for

.       the Parliament to make amendment thereto It was urged that
        as tlie amendment carried out was a substantive one, it was
        mandatorily required to be sent to the Legislature of Uttar
        Pradesh for its approval. The learned counsel would contend           G
j
        that the District and City in law being two different territories,
        in view of the fact that discussions had been held in the State
        Assembly in regard to the City of Haridwar only, it is
        impermissible in law to include the District of Haridwar in the
        Act as thereby the object and purpose of introducing proviso          H
    120          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2009) 8 S.C.R. ' .


A   to Article 3 has been defeated.

       10. Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned Additional Solicitor
  General appearing on behalf of the Union of India, on the other
  hand, took us through the discussions which took place in the
B Uttar Pradesh State Legislative Assembly to contend that from
  a perusal thereof, it would appear that a thorough discussion
  had taken place with regard to inclusion of the entire district of
  Haridwar by the members thereof.

          11. Article 3 of the Constitution of India reads, thus :
c
          "Article 3.-Formation of new States and alteration of
          areas, boundaries or names of existing States-
          Parliament may by law-

           (a)     Form a new State by separation of territory from any
D
                   State or by uniting two or more States or parts of
                   States or by uniting any territory to a part of any
                   State;

           (b)     increase the area of any State;
E
           (c)     diminish the area of any State;

           (d)     alter the boundaries of any State;

           (e)     alter the name of any State;
F
          Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced
          in either House of Parliament except on the
          recommendation of the President and unless, where the
          proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries
          or name of any of the States, the Bill has been referred by
G
          the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing
          its views thereon within such period as may be specified
          in the reference or within such further period as the
          President may allow and the period so specified or
          allowed has expired.
H
 •  i




             PRADEEP CHAUDHARY & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 121
                        & ANR. [S.S. SINHA, J.]
    f
                  Explanation 1.- In this article, in clauses (a) to (e}, "State"   A
                  includes a Union territory, but in the proviso, "State" does
                  not include a Union territory.

                  Explanation II.- The power conferred on Parliament by
                  clause (a) includes the power to form a new State or Union        B
                  territory by uniting a part of any State or Union territory to
                  any other State or Union territory.
        ).
                   12. A bare perusal of the said provisions would clearly
             show that formation of a new State by separation of territories
             from a State or by uniting two or more States or parts thereof         c
             is within the legislative domain of the Parliament. The proviso
             appended thereto postulates that (1) Bill may not be introduced
l''
             except on the recommendations of the President; and (ii) where
             the proposal contained in the Bill affecting the areas,
             boundaries or name of any of the State, reference of the Bill          D
             by the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing
             its views thereon; and (3) Such views may be expressed within
~
             such period as may be specified in the reference or within such
             period as the President may allow and the period so specified
             or allowed has expired.                                                E

                  13. We may notice that prior to the changes introduced by
             Constitution (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1955, the proviso only
             required the President to ascertain the views of the Legislature
             of the State or States affected. The amendment, however,
                                                                                    F
             widened the scope of the Bill which is to be referred by the
             President to the State Legislature.

                   14. Indisputably, only because one or the other view had
             been expressed in the State Legislature, the same would not
             be binding upon the Parliament even if its views were received         G
        ~·
             in time. When, however, the views of the State Legislature were
             not received in time, the Parliament would be free to pass the
             Act in terms of the Bill or with amendment as it may deem fit
             and proper. A Bill has to be introduced in the Parliament. It is
             the Parliament's prerogative to place the Bill in either of the        H
    122      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2009] 8 S.C.R.


A Houses, either in the same form or with amendments.

         15. In Durga Das Basu's commentary on the Constitution
    of India (8th Edn.) p.467, it is stated :

          "It has been ruled by the Speaker of the House of the
B         People that the Bill having once been referred by the
          President to the State Legislatures concerned and
          thereafter duly introduced in Parliament, amendments
          seeking to make provisions different from those contained
          in the Bill as introduced and thereby affecting the area,
c         boundaries or names of the State are in order and are not
          ultra 1.rires of the constitution These amendments are not
          required to be referred again to the State Legislature
          concerned nor is any fresh recommendation of the
          President necessary for their consideration."
D
       16. We must also place on record that whereas prior to
  the amendment in 1955, the views of the St;:ite Legislatures
  were to be ascertained not only with respect to proposal to the
  introduction of the Bill but also the provisions thereof, but then
E those words have been omitted in the amended proviso; the
  only requirement being a reference to Bill which comes within
  the purview of Article 3. Once such reference has been made,
  the ordinary rules of Parliamentary procedure shall govern the
  same.

F      The question came up for consideration before a
  Constitution Bench in Babula/ Parate v. The State of Bombay
  and Anr. ((1960) 1 SCR 605], wherein the question of
  constitutionality of Section BA was raised. Therein, proposal
  was made for formation of three separate units, namely, Union
G Territory of Bombay, State of Maharashtra including
  Marathawada and Vidarbha and the State of Gujarat including
  Saurashtra and Cutch. However, the territory for which the Union
  Territory of Bombay was to be constituted was included in the
  State of Maharashtra. This Court repelled the contention that a
H fresh reference to the State Legislature was necessary and a
PRADEEP CHAUDHARY & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 123
           & ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
fresh Bill was required to be introduced in the Parliament            A
opining that the Parliament was not bound to accept the views
of one of the legislature or the other.

      17. Upon taking into consideration the contentions raised
by the petitioner therein that a substantial modification of the
                                                                      B
original proposal of three units contained in the Bill had been
obtained upon holding discussions on the subject, it could not
be stated that the State Legislature had no opportunity of
expressing its views in favour of a composite union instead of
three separate units if it so desired, it was opined .:
                                                                      c
     "That being the position we see no reasons for importing
     into the construction of Article 3 any doctrinaire
     consideration of the sanctity of the. rights of States or even
     for giving an extended meaning to the expression 'State'
     occurring therein. None of the constituent units of the Indian   D
     Union was sovereign and independent in the sense the
    American colonies or the Swiss Cantons were before they
    formed their federal unions. The constituent Assembly of
    India, deriving its power from the sovereign people, was
    unfettered by any previous commitment in evolving a               E
    constitutional pattern suitable to the genius and
    requirements of the Indian people as a whole. Unlike some
    other federal legislature, Parliament, representing the
    people of India as a whole, has beeri vested with fhe
    exclusive power of admitting or es~ablishing new States,          F
    increasing or diminishing the area of an existing State or
    altering its boundaries, the Legislature or Legislatures of
    the States concerned having only the right to an expression
    of views on the proposals. It is significant that for making
    such territorial adjustments it is not necessary even to          G
    invoke the provisions governing constitutional
    amendments."

    18. The Legislature of the State of Uttar Pradesh cannot
be said to have been wholly unaware of the question as to
whether the District of Haridwar was to be included in the            H
    124      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2009] 8 S.C.R.


A proposed statute or not. From the proceedings of the debates           :
  held in the Uttar Pradesh State Legislative Assembly, it
  appears that one Shri Bhagat Singh Koshyari categorically
  stated that he had with him a list of 250 Pradhans, people from
  Haridwar and Udhamsingh Nagar, who had met the Prime
B Minister and wanted the said districts to merge with the new
  State and, thus, a question was asked as to how could it be
  said that the residents of the said districts did not want them
  to be merged with the proposed State of Uttaranchal.

       19. Another member Shri Tirath Singh Rawat stated that            !

C while formation of Uttranchal is not in dispute; inclusion of
  Haridwar and exclusion of Udham Singh Nagar was different,
  opining:

          "Sir, without Haridwar district, Uttaranchal will be
D         incomplete. As has been discussed earlier, its culture,
          religiosity and its being the doorway to the hills! It is a
          tourist spot, Gangotri, Yamunotri, Badrinath and
          Kedarnath's pilgrimage states here. Just now my elder
          respected Ram Saran Dasji said Haridwar and
E         Udhamsingh Nagar should not be a part of Uttaranchal."

         20. Shri Lalji Tandon also stated that amendment
    introduced by the State Government show that Haridwar has
    been considered to be a part of Uttaranchal.
F         One of the other members Shri Bansi Dhar Bhagat stated:

          "While we concede that a State should not be formed on
          the basis of language, we cannot dream Uttaranchal
          without Udhamsingh Nagar. The same is the case of
G         Haridwar. I request that along with Udhamsingh Nagar, the
          entire district of Haridwar should form part of Uttaranchal.
          Haridwar is itself a sacred place and the only passage-
          way to the four sacred shrines of Uttaranchal. Therefore, I
          request that it should be included in Uttaranchal."
H         Yet again, Shri Tilak Raj Behrar in his speech, stated :
   PRADEEP CHAUDHARY & ORS. v. UNION OF                        125
         INDIA & ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
     "Udhamsingh Nagar has always been a part of Kumaon. I            A
     understand that some outsiders tried to vitiate the
     atmosphere but could not succeed. They tried for
     referendum but failed. They came back empty-handed.
     These people have also expressed their desire to remain
     in Uttaranchal. They want that the areas of Fazalganj,           B
     Bijnore, Nagina, Dhampur, Najibabad and Haridwar, from
     Khatima to Haridwar, abutting the national highway, should
     be given to it so that Uttaranchal becomes a big, strong
     State."

     Dr. Ramesh Pokharival 'Nishank' pointed out that in the
                                                                      c
earlier 13th Schedule, the entire District of Haridwar was to be
included in Uttaranchal, reiterating 'Haridwar was a central
corridor for to and from movement'.

    Shri Ambrish Kumar, who was a Member of the State                 D
Assembly and filed a separate writ application which has been
dismissed for default stated :

     'Then Udhamsingh Nagar was a part of Nainital district and
     the proposal was for that district. But I want to know how       E
     their own Government proposed for the formation of
     Uttaranchal without Haridwar? That too on three occasions.
     All had then voted unanimously so can they change those
     sentiments today. Do they have that right today when they
     want Haridwar be included in Uttaranchal?"
                                                                      F
     21. From the Constituent Assembly debates, it appears
that a motion to introduce the new proviso was discussed,
according to Prof. K.T. Shah for the purpose of consulting the
Legislature of the State name or boundaries whereof are
proposed to be altered or which areas were proposed to be             G
increased or decreased.

    The term 'consultation' means differently in different context.
While a power to introduce the Bill is kept with the Parliament,
consultation with the State Legislature although is mandatory         H
    126      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2009] 8 S.C.R.


A but its recommendations were not binding on the Parliament.
  'Consultation' in a case of this nature would not mean
  concurrence. It only means to ask or seek for the views of a
  person on any given subject. The views of the State Legislature
  certainly woul.d be taken into consideration but the same would
B not mean that the Parliament would be bound thereby.
  Substantive compliance of the said provision shall serve the
  purpose. What is mandatory is that the President may refer the
  Bill to the Legislative Assembly for obtaining its views but it will
  bear repetition to state that the Parliament would not be bound
c by the views of the State Legislature and even in a case where
  substantive amendment is carried out, the amended
  Parliamentary Bill need not be referred to the State Legislature
  again for obtaining its fresh views.

        22. Detailed discussions have taken place amongst the
D members of the Legislative Assembly. They resolved to exclude
  _even the town of Haridwar. The Central Government, however,
   opined that the Bill should be introduced in the Parliament in
   the amended form.

E        23. In view of the aforementioned authoritative
    pronouncement of the Constitution Bench, we are of the opinion
    that there is no merit in this application.

         24. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. However,
    there shall be no order as to costs.
F
    N.J.                                   Writ Petition dismissed.