9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the petitioner's fundamental rights under Arts. 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution have been infringed in a case involving the transfer of property declared as evacuee property under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner's husband, who carried on a hotel business in Karachi, was declared an evacuee under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. The petitioner challenged the declaration through various stages but did not appeal to the appropriate High Court or seek special leave from the Supreme Court against the final decision of the Custodian General. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner cannot complain of an infringement of fundamental rights under Art. 32 of the Constitution as the decision of the competent authorities under the Act has become final, and no challenge was made against it in the appropriate forum. 2. The petitioner contested the validity of the notice issued under the Act and the findings that her husband was an evacuee and the property in question was evacuee property. The Court clarified that the lack of jurisdiction was not an issue raised by the petitioner at any stage. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's alleged fundamental rights were dependent on the status of her husband as an evacuee and the property as evacuee property, which were conclusively determined by competent authorities. 3. The Court referenced a prior decision where it was held that when a court of competent jurisdiction decides that the right alleged by a petitioner does not exist, no infringement can be claimed. The Court reiterated that the petitioner's failure to challenge the decision of the authorities under the Act in the appropriate forum precludes her from raising the issue of fundamental rights infringement under Art. 32 of the Constitution. 4. The Court emphasized that the petitioner should have challenged the correctness of the orders through an appeal with special leave or in the High Court having jurisdiction over the Custodian General. Since the petitioner did not pursue these avenues, the Court held that she cannot now challenge the orders on merits through a writ petition under Art. 32. 5. The Court dismissed the petition, stating that the decision of the competent authorities under the Act, which became final due to lack of challenge, precludes the petitioner from claiming an infringement of fundamental rights. The Court clarified that the rejection of the petitioner's earlier application by the High Court of Kerala based on territorial jurisdiction was not the basis of the decision but rather the finality of the authorities' decision. 6. The Court relied on precedent to establish that when a decision of competent authorities becomes final and the petitioner does not challenge it through appropriate channels, no infringement of fundamental rights can be claimed. The Court dismissed the petition with costs, emphasizing the importance of pursuing legal remedies in a timely and appropriate manner. End of analysis.
|
