1952 (5) TMI 15 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdiction of the respondent to entertain the appeal.
2. Locus standi of Tekchand Dolwani to prefer the appeal.
3. Validity of the order pronounced after the death of Aboobaker.
4. Competency of the appeal against the order of the Additional Custodian.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the respondent to entertain the appeal:

The appellants contended that the appeal was against the order of the 9th February, 1950, and not the 8th February, 1950. They argued that no appeal lay against the order of the 9th, thus the respondent had no jurisdiction to hear it. The Court held that the appeal in substance was from the order of the 8th February, and the respondent had jurisdiction to entertain it. The Court emphasized that an appellate court has inherent jurisdiction to determine preliminary issues, including the competency of the appeal and the locus standi of the appellant. The tribunal constituted to hear appeals under section 24 was empowered to decide whether an appeal was competent and whether a party had locus standi to prefer it.

2. Locus standi of Tekchand Dolwani to prefer the appeal:

The appellants argued that Tekchand Dolwani was not a "person aggrieved" within the meaning of section 24 of the Ordinance and had no locus standi to prefer the appeal. The Court referred to Rule 8(5) of the Ordinance, which allows any person claiming to be interested in the enquiry to file a written statement and adduce evidence. Tekchand Dolwani, being the first informant and having participated in the proceedings, was considered a person aggrieved by the order dated 8th February, 1950. The Court concluded that Tekchand had the right to appeal as he was aggrieved by the decision disallowing his contention.

3. Validity of the order pronounced after the death of Aboobaker:

The appellants initially contended that the order pronounced on the 15th May, 1950, after the death of Aboobaker on the 14th May, 1950, was a nullity. However, it was conceded that the death of Aboobaker did not affect the validity of the order, as it was dictated and signed on the 13th May, 1950. The Court upheld the principle that an order written but not pronounced could be pronounced even after the death of a party affected, as per Order XXII, Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, this contention was rejected.

4. Competency of the appeal against the order of the Additional Custodian:

The appellants argued that no appeal lay against the order of the Additional Custodian dated 8th February, 1950, as section 24 allows an appeal only against an order declaring properties as evacuee properties. The Court held that section 24 confers a right of appeal against all orders made under section 7, including orders determining whether a person is an evacuee. The decision of the Custodian, whether affirmative or negative, amounts to an adjudication under section 7 and is appealable. The Court also noted that the power to grant a certain relief includes the power to refuse it, thus making the order of the 8th February, 1950, appealable.

Conclusion:

The appeal was dismissed, and the Court affirmed that the respondent had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, Tekchand Dolwani had locus standi, the order pronounced after Aboobaker's death was valid, and the appeal against the order of the 8th February, 1950, was competent. The High Court's decision to dismiss the petition for writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus was upheld.