1967 (3) TMI 112 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether Abdul Latif Hajee Esmail was an evacuee and if his property was evacuee property under the U.P. Ordinance No. 1 of 1949.
2. Jurisdiction of the Competent Officer and Appellate Officer in the absence of notice or declaration under the Central Ordinance No. 27 of 1949 or Central Act 31 of 1950.
3. Jurisdiction of the officers to pass orders relating only to the Kanpur branch of the firm.
4. Validity of the officers' decision that Abdul Latif Hajee Esmail had a subsisting share in the partnership after its reconstitution dates.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Evacuee Status and Property:
The Court examined whether Abdul Latif Hajee Esmail was an evacuee under the U.P. Ordinance No. 1 of 1949. The definition of "evacuee" under Section 2(c) includes those who left for Pakistan due to civil disturbances. Abdul Latif Hajee Esmail, having gone to Pakistan in 1948, was deemed an evacuee. Consequently, his share in the partnership business automatically vested in the Custodian under Section 5 of the U.P. Ordinance. The Court concluded that the petitioners had no interest in Esmail's share, which had vested in the Custodian.

2. Jurisdiction of Officers Without Notice or Declaration:
The petitioners argued that the Competent Officer and Appellate Officer lacked jurisdiction as no notice was issued and no declaration made under Section 7 of the Central Ordinance No. 27 of 1949 or Central Act 31 of 1950. The Court clarified that properties automatically vested under the U.P. Ordinance did not require further notice or declaration under Section 7. The automatic vesting continued under the Central Ordinance and Act by virtue of deeming provisions. Thus, the officers had jurisdiction to declare the property as evacuee property.

3. Jurisdiction Over Kanpur Branch:
The petitioners contended that the officers had no jurisdiction to pass orders confined to the Kanpur branch of the firm. The Court found that the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, Kanpur, had issued a notice and taken possession of the Kanpur property in September 1949. The subsequent proceedings under the Central Ordinance and Act were valid, and the officers were within their jurisdiction to deal with the Kanpur branch.

4. Subsisting Share in Partnership:
The petitioners argued that Abdul Latif Hajee Esmail did not have a subsisting share in the partnership after its reconstitution on February 10, 1949, and August 8, 1949. The Court noted that the Deputy Custodian, in his order dated May 31, 1950, found Esmail's share to be 5 annas out of 19 annas and 3 pies, and this order had become final as no appeal was filed. The Court held that the petitioners could not challenge this finding and had no fundamental right in Esmail's vested share.

High Court's Jurisdiction:
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, as the Appellate Officer's office was outside Uttar Pradesh. The Supreme Court analyzed the facts and found that the Appellate Officer, though having his main office in New Delhi, was appointed by the State Government and operated within the territorial limits of the High Court. The Court held that the High Court had jurisdiction to issue a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution against such an authority.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition without prejudice to the petitioners' personal rights, subject to the final orders by the High Court. The appeals were remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law. The High Court's jurisdiction to issue a writ was affirmed, and the costs were to abide by the result.