JUDGMENT
G.C. Garg, J.
1. Petitioner Amar Vivek in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as a public interest litigation, has challenged the vires of the East Punjab Moveable Property (Requisitioning) Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) on various grounds as detailed in the petition. A prayer has also been made in the petition that the respondents be directed not to requisition the private vehicles belonging to the members of public.
2. Respondent – State of Punjab has filed written statement wherein requisitioning of private vehicles of the members of the public has not been denied. It is rather admitted therein that vehicles were requisitioned in accordance with law for urgent duties of the security personnels by the competent authorities. A further stand was taken in the written statement that the provisions of the aforesaid Act is a valid piece of legislation and is not hit by any provisions of the Constitution of India.
3. At the time of hearing, the petitioner straightaway pointed out that the entire Act has already been struck down by this Court being ultravires of the constitution in Khan Chand Mool Chand v. State of Punjab and Anr. A.I.R. 1967 Pb. & Hry. 225 and the judgment in the said case has been further upheld by the apex Court in The State of Punjab v. Khan Chand A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 543. In this view of the matter this writ petition has been rendered infructuous and deserves to be dismissed as such. But there is another aspect of the matter as well. Despite the fact that aforesaid Act has been struck down being ultravires of the provisions of the Constitution of India, the respondent-State of Punjab is still requisitioning the private vehicles of the public under the said Act. When it was pointed out to the learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab that the provisions of the Act have already been struck down and, therefore, the vehicles could not be requisitioned under the Act, he made a statement in Court that in future the private vehicles of the members of the public shall not be requisitioned and the factum of the Act having already been struck down will be given a wide publicity for the information of the general public. He further assured the Court that in future, if any vehicle is required to be requisitioned, two days’ prior notice would be served on the owner thereof indicating the provisions of law under which it is sought to be requisitioned. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab has placed on record three cuts-out containing insertions published in three leading newspapers on September 9, 1993 to the effect that the East Punjab Moveable Property (Requisitioning) Act, 1947 has been declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court and has become inoperative, and that in future, if any vehicle is to be requisitioned, A prior notice would have to be given to the owner stating under which provision of the law that is being done.
4. In view of the assurance given to the Court by the learned counsel appearing for the State and insertions having been made in the newspapers, this petition is rendered infructuous and is dismissed as such. No costs.