P.S. Safeer, J.
(1) The reference made by the learned Additional District Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala, under section 93 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 disclosed that the Punjab State was the party to the said reference. It was for that reason that I had passed the order dated the 22nd October, 1970.
(2) Mr, D. P. Sud has referred me to the provisions of Section 92 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 and then to clauses (i), (m) and (n)of Section 2 thereof. Clause (m) is:-
'(M)'Successor State',in relation to the existing State of Punjab, means the State of Punjab or Haryana, and includes also the Union in relation to the Union Territory of Chandigarh and the transferred territory.'
(3) The transferred territory is defined in clause (n) of Section 2 of the aforementioned Act. Clause (m) means that in respect of the transferred territory the Union i. e Union of India will be the successor State, Himachal iradesh as such will not be the successor State. The transferred territory has been defined as the one transferred from the existing State of Punjab to the Union territory of Himachal Pradesh. But then for the purposes of determining as to what is the meaning of the words 'successor State*' as used in Section 92 of the afore-mentioned Act one has necessarily to confine himself to clause (m) of Section 2 of the Act. There it is the Union which would mean the successor State in respect of the transferred territory. In consequence of the opration of the provisions of Section 92 of the Act, my view is that the Union of India representing the territory transferred to Himachal Pradesh would stand substituted as the successor State. Union of India is not represented before me.
(4) In view of the foregoing only the Union of India can be taken to have been substituted for the State of Punjab by the operation of Section 92 of the Act and unless the Union of India appears in this case as a successor to the State of Punjab, this reference cannot bs dealt with. The same is abjourned.