Who will succeed Chhibber?
Tribune News Service

NEW DELHI, Sept 10 — The Union government is in a dilemma about naming the successor to Punjab’s Governor, Lieut-Gen Bakshi Krishan Nath Chhibber (retd), whose five-year term expires on September 17.

The Constitution of India’s Article 156(3) gives the proviso that "a Governor shall, notwithstanding the expiration of his term, continue to hold office until his successor enters upon his office". However, in Lieut-Gen Chhibber’s case, his relationship with the Akali government in Punjab is prompting the government at the Centre to name a successor.

As the election process is on, a new appointment cannot be made. The choice, therefore, is whether the Haryana Governor, Mr Mahabir Prasad, will be asked to hold additional charge of Governor of Punjab and Administrator of Union Territory of Chandigarh, or the choice will fall on Justice Arun Sahariya, Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

It is reliably learnt Punjab Chief Minister, Parkash Singh Badal, has strongly told senior functionaries of the Union government that the Governor should retire on the expiry of his term.

Relations between Mr Badal’s Akali government and the Governor have been sour from the very beginning. The Governor’s decision negating the recommendation of the Lok Pal, Justice Harbans Singh Rai, in the cases concerning four former Congress Cabinet Ministers, has been like the proverbial last straw on the camel’s back.

It may be recalled that Gen Chhibber, who was Security Adviser to the then Chief Minister, late Beant Singh, was appointed the Governor at the recommendation of Mr Beant Singh by the P.V. Narasimha Rao government after the tragic death of Mr Surendra Nath, who perished with the members of his family in an aircrash in Himachal Pradesh.

Lieut-Gen Chhibber is not the only Governor who is due for retirement this month, Karnataka’s Mr Khurshid Alam Khan retires on September 19. In his case, however, there is a request from Chief Minister, J.H. Patel, for an extended term.

Two other Governors have completed their tenures and are yet to relinquish office under Article 156(3): Manipur’s Mr O.N. Srivastava completed his term on August 4 and Orissa’s Mr G. Ramanujam did so a day earlier.

The BJP government has not appointed too many Governors during its 13-month tenure as a regular government. In some cases, as in West Bengal, Rajasthan and Bihar, it has given charge to the respective High Court Chief Justice as Acting Governor.

Given this background, it remains to be seen if Justice Arun Sahariya would be requested to be the Acting Governor of Punjab or the choice will fall on Mr Mahabir Prasad, who too is a Congress nominee (he is a former Uttar Pradesh PCC chief). The tenure of Mr Mahabir Prasad in Haryana Raj Bhavan ends on June 13 next year.

A decision on the future of Punjab’s Governor has to be taken by the Union Cabinet. Even for acting charge, consent of the President will be needed.

SC quashes appointment
of Dr Harpal Singh
Tribune News Service

NEW DELHI, Sept 10 — The Supreme Court, considering the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, has struck down the appointment of Dr Harpal Singh as State Drugs Controlling Authority, Punjab.

Various Assistant Drugs Controllers from the state of Punjab challenged the appointment of Dr Harpal Singh on the ground that he had neither the qualification nor the experience as required under the rules framed under the Act, and therefore could not have been appointed as the State Drugs Controlling Authority.

Mr Nidhesh Gupta, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants before the Supreme Court, contended that "the experience of testing of "Drugs" had to be of such drugs as defined in Section 3 (b) of the Act."

It was further contended by the counsel that a reading of the Act as also the Second Schedule attached thereto made it clear that the entire scheme of the Act required that certain standards were required to be met in the manufacture and testing of drugs. These standards were stringent and detailed under the Second Schedule.

The experience of Dr Harpal Singh in dealing with the so-called testing of drugs, did not pertain to the testing of drugs in relation to the standards set out in the Second Schedule and, therefore, could not be considered relevant for the purposes of the Act. the counsel argued.

The appellants’ counsel submitted that the object of the Act was to ensure that the drugs complied with the standards set out in the Second Schedule of the Act. The same could be achieved only by appointing such persons as Controlling Authority who had experience of working with the standards prescribed in the Second Schedule and that merely because someone had tested drugs was not sufficient.

Mere testing of alcohol water etc was not relevant as the same came within the meaning of "Food" under the Act and food has been specifically excluded under the definition of "drugs" under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, he stated.

Mr P.N. Mishra, the senior counsel, appearing for Dr Harpal Singh, however, contended that all requirements in the Act were met and the experience of working outside the provisions of the Act could also be taken into consideration.

Mr Mishra submitted that Dr Harpal Singh had strongly relied upon his work as Chemical Examiner of the Government of Punjab from 1988 to 1992 and the notification appointing him as Chemical Examiner stated that he had been so appointed for the purpose of analysing the samples of Excise and Medico-legal cases and reporting thereon.

Mr Rajiv Dutta, appearing for the State of Punjab also supported contentions of Mr Mishra.