1978 (9) TMI 175 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Competent Officer to review his own orders.
2. Finality of orders under Section 18 of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951.
3. Conduct of the writ petitioners in invoking review jurisdiction.

Summary:

1. Jurisdiction of the Competent Officer to review his own orders:
The Supreme Court examined whether the Competent Officer had the jurisdiction to review his own orders. The High Court had ruled that in the absence of any provision in the Act for review, it was not permissible for the Competent Officer to review his order dated May 12, 1958. The Supreme Court reiterated that review is a creature of statute and cannot be entertained in the absence of a provision therefor, citing precedents such as Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh and others. Therefore, the orders of the Competent Officer dated March 15, 1958, and May 12, 1958, in favor of the writ petitioners were without jurisdiction.

2. Finality of orders under Section 18 of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951:
The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 18 of the Act provides that every order made by any appellate officer or competent officer shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court by way of an appeal or revision or in any original suit, application, or execution proceedings. Since the writ petitioners did not avail the appellate or revisional jurisdiction against the order dated August 31, 1955, it became final and binding under Section 18. The subsequent orders of the Competent Officer dated March 15, 1958, and May 12, 1958, setting aside the vesting order dated August 31, 1955, were therefore without jurisdiction.

3. Conduct of the writ petitioners in invoking review jurisdiction:
The Supreme Court noted that the writ petitioners had themselves unlawfully invoked the review jurisdiction of the Competent Officer, which did not exist, to their advantage. When the Department invoked the same jurisdiction on important grounds, the writ petitioners could not argue that the review orders were void for want of jurisdiction. The conduct of the writ petitioners was such as to disentitle them to certiorari, and the High Court erred in ignoring this important aspect.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated February 26, 1964, and dismissed the writ petition. There was no order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case.