1957 (4) TMI 61 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Minister to cancel allotments.
2. Legality of the order of cancellation signed by the Additional Custodian.
3. Lack of notice and hearing before cancellation of allotments.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Minister to Cancel Allotments:
The appellants argued that the Minister's order dated June 23, 1950, cancelling their allotments was without jurisdiction. The court agreed, noting that under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, the Minister had no power to cancel an allotment. The learned Advocate General conceded this point, acknowledging that the Minister lacked the legal authority to issue such an order.

2. Legality of the Order of Cancellation Signed by the Additional Custodian:
The court examined whether the Additional Custodian, Mr. M. S. Randhawa, by merely signing the Minister's order, made it his own. It was determined that Mr. Randhawa did not adopt the order as his own; he simply forwarded it for compliance without adding any directive of his own. The court emphasized that even if Mr. Randhawa had adopted the order, it would still be invalid because the Custodian must act judicially and independently, not under the influence or direction of a Minister. The court cited several legal precedents to underline that a judicial decision must be made impartially, based on evidence and in accordance with the law, which was not the case here.

3. Lack of Notice and Hearing Before Cancellation of Allotments:
The appellants were not given notice or an opportunity to be heard before the cancellation of their allotments, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory requirements. The court noted that under Section 26(2) of the Act, an order can only be reviewed "after giving notice to the parties concerned." The fact that the appellants were not heard before their allotments were canceled rendered the order invalid. The subsequent hearing by the Custodian did not rectify this procedural defect.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the order canceling the allotments of the appellants, whether considered as the order of the Minister or of the Additional Custodian, on the grounds that it was without jurisdiction, illegal, and made without following due process. The appeal was accepted, and no costs were awarded.