1. The vires of Section 35 of the Punjab State Aid to Industries Act. 1935, were questioned in this petition before my learned brother. P. C. Jain. J., on the ground that the said provision is repugnant to Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it prescribes two procedures for effecting recovery, one of which is harsher and more onerous than the other, without laying down any guidelines for the appropriate authorities to choose to follow one or the other of those two alternative courses. This precise argument had already been repelled by a Full Bench of this Court in Harish Chand v. Collector of Amritsar. AIR 1959 Puni 19. The counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted before the learned judge that the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Harish Chand's case (supra) no longer holds the field in view of the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Northern India Caterers (Pvt.) Ltd.. v. State of Punjab. AIR 1967 SC 1581. wherein Section 5 of the Puniab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act (3) of 1959) was held to be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the same ground. As the learned single Judge did not find it proper to hear further arguments on that question in view of the earlier Full Bench decision of this Court, the case was referred to a Full Bench. This is how the matter has been placed before us today.
2. At the outset, Mr. C. D. Dewan, the learned Additional Advocate-General for the State of Haryana. has brought to our notice the judgment of the Supreme Court dated April 11. 1974. in Civil Appeal No. 680 of 1968 = (reported in AIR 1974 SC 2009). Maganlal Chhagganlal (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (and the connected cases), wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held as under:--
'Therefore, the contention that the mere availability of two procedures will vitiate one of them that is the special procedure, is not supported by reason or authority.'
Dealings with the Northern India Caterers' case AIR 1967 SC 1581 (supra) specifically their Lordships observed:--
'We. therefore, find ourselves unable to agree with the majority in the Northern India Caterers' case.' On the merits of the cases decided by their Lordships, the argument about certain provisions of different statutes being ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitutionof India merely on account of two procedures having been provided therein, one harsher than the other without laying down any guidelines for selecting one or the other of the two alternative procedures, was rejected outright.
3. In these circumstances, the law laid down earlier by the Supreme Court hi Northern India Caterers' case. AIR 1967 SC 1581 does not appear to hold the field and the only impediment in the way of the learned Single Judge for following the earlier Full Bench judgment of this Court in Harish Chand's case, AIR 1959 Punj 19 no longer exists. We therefore, hold that the decision of the Supreme Court in Northern India Caterers' case does not in these circumstances affect the correctness of the earlier Full Bench judgment of this Court which is otherwise binding on us. Since no other point was argued in this case before the learned Single Judge and none is even now sought to be canvassed before us, this petition must fail and is accordingly dismissed, though without anyorder as to costs.