TMI Blog1952 (5) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cuee Property, the Additional Custodian started proceedings under the Bombay Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 1949, against Aboobaker in or about the month of July, 1949. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the Government of India Ordinance XXVII of 1949 came into force. Thereupon, on the 16th December, 1949, the Additional Custodian issued a notice to the said Aboobaker under section 7 of the Ordinance and a further notice on the 11th January, 1950, to show cause why his property should not be declared to be evacuee property. Pursuant to the said notices an enquiry was held by the Additional Custodian of Evacuee Property who after recording the statement of the said Aboobaker and examining some other evidence produced by the said Tekchand Dolwani and taking into consideration the written statement filed by him, adjudicated on the 8th February, 1950, that the said Aboobaker was not an evacuee. He, however, issued another notice to Aboobaker on the same day calling upon him to show cause why he should not be declared an intending evacuee under section 19 of the said Ordinance. On the 9th February, 1950, he adjudicated him as an intending evacuee. On the 31st Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d son and the other appellant is his only daughter. Being aggrieved by the order of the respondent dated the lath May, 1950, the appellants filed a petition in the High Court of the State of Punjab at Simla on the 26th February, 1951, under article 226 of the Constitution, praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside that order and for a writ of prohibition or mandamus directing the said respondent to forbear from proceeding with the hearing of the said appeal on the 7th March, 1951, or on any other date or dates. The appellants raised the following contentions in the petition: 1. That the appeal preferred by Tekchand Dolwani before the respondent was in terms an appeal against the order of the 9th February, 1950, and not an appeal against the conclusion reached on the 8th February, 1950, and inasmuch as the said order was made against Aboobaker and not in his favour, Tekchand had no right of appeal against the same and the respondent had no jurisdiction to entertain it or make any order therein. 2. That Tekchand was not a person aggrieved by the order dated the 8th February, 1950, within the meaning of section 24 of the Ordinance and was not entitled to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed practically the same attitude before us in view of the affidavit of the respondent in which it was affirmed that the order in question was dictated on the 13th May, 1950, and was signed on the same date. the High Court on the principle of Order XXII, Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure, held that an order written but not pronounced could be pronounced even after the death of the party affected. In these circumstances the last contention of the learned counsel does not require any further consideration and is rejected. The larger question that has been raised in the petition pending before the High Court of the State of Bombay that the properties of Aboobaker could not be declared evacuee properties after his death as they had devolved on his heirs was not raised in these proceedings and we have not been invited to decide it. That being so, the question is left open. The remaining three questions canvassed before us, unless they are of such a nature as would make the decision of the respondent dated the 13th May, 1950, a nullity, cannot be the subject-matter of a writ of certiorari. It is plain that such a writ cannot be granted to quash the decision of an inferior court wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure may entrust the tribunal on body with a jurisdiction which includes the jurisdiction, to determine whether the preliminary state of facts exists as well as the jurisdiction, and on finding that it doe: exist, to proceed further or do something more. Where the legislature are establishing such a tribunal or body with limited jurisdiction, they also have to consider whatever jurisdiction they give them, whether there shall be any appeal from their decision, for otherwise there will be none. In the second of the two cases I have mentioned it is erroneous application of the formula to say that the tribunal cannot give themselves jurisdiction by wrongly deciding certain facts to exist, because the legislature gave them jurisdiction to determine all the facts including the existence of the preliminary facts on which the further exercise of their jurisdiction depends; and if they were given jurisdiction so to decide, without any appeal being given, there is no appeal from such exercise of their jurisdiction. The tribunal constituted to hear appeals under section 24 has been constituted in these terms: Any person aggrieved by an order made under section 7, section 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idence, if any, which the party appearing to show cause may produce and also evidence which the party claiming to be interested as mentioned above may adduce. In the proceedings before the Additional Custodian, Tekchand Dolwani filed a reply to the written statement of Aboobaker and adduced evidence in support of the stand taken by him that the property of Aboobaker was evacuee property. Further Tekchand Dolwani was the first informant who brought to the notice of the Custodian concerned that the property of Aboobaker was evacuee property and in view of the order of the Ministry of Rehabilitation he was, as a first informant, entitled to first consideration in the allotment of this property, the Additional Custodian was bound to hear him on the truth and validity of the information given by him. When a person is given a right to raise a contest in a certain matter and his contention is negatived, then to say that he is not a person aggrieved by the order does not seem to us to be at all right or proper. He is certainly aggrieved by the order disallowing his contention. Section 24 allows a right of appeal to any person aggrieved by an order made under section 7. The conclusion reach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Court, and, I suppose placed on record, as all orders of the High Court are, it seems to me that it is clearly an order of the Court. In our opinion, Tekchand Dolwani is a person aggrieved within the rule stated in the decision mentioned above and the respondent rightly held that he had locus standi to prefer the appeal. The next point urged was that the appeal had been preferred against the order of the 9th February and not against the order of the 8th and that the respondent had no jurisdiction to hear it. Whether the appeal in substance had been preferred against the order of the 8th or the order of the 9th was a matter which was certainly within the competence of the respondent to decide and does not involve any question of jurisdiction whatsoever. Be that as it may. we have examined the memorandum of appeal presented by Tekchand Dolwani to the respondent and it appears to us that the High Court was right when it held that the appeal was in effect and in substance an appeal from the order passed by the Additional Custodian on the 8th February. The relief claimed in appeal concerns the order of the 8th and the grounds of appeal only relate to this matter. The only d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
