9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Custodian-General to set aside the order of August 22, 1950, under Section 27 of the Act. 2. Competency of appeals to the High Court against the order of December 2, 1952. 3. Validity of the High Court's issuance of a writ of certiorari against the order of December 2, 1952. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Custodian-General to Set Aside the Order of August 22, 1950, Under Section 27 of the Act: The primary issue was whether the Custodian-General had the jurisdiction to set aside the order dated August 22, 1950, under Section 27 of the Act. The Court noted that the first Mysore Act, which did not include provisions for the Custodian-General, was repealed by the second Mysore Act. The second Mysore Act introduced the Custodian-General and granted him revisionary powers under Section 25. The Act of 1950, which came into force on April 17, 1950, further expanded these powers, allowing the Custodian-General to call for records of any proceeding in which any District Judge or Custodian had passed an order and to pass such orders as deemed fit. This provision was broader than the second Mysore Act. The Court highlighted that the Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, No. LXVI of 1950, retrospectively amended Section 58 of the Act to explicitly repeal any corresponding state laws, including the second Mysore Act, from April 17, 1950. Therefore, when the Custodian-General issued notices in October 1950 and passed the order in February 1952, only the Act was in force. The Court concluded that the Custodian-General had jurisdiction under Section 27 to revise the order dated August 22, 1950, and that subsequent proceedings were within jurisdiction. 2. Competency of Appeals to the High Court Against the Order of December 2, 1952: The second issue was whether an appeal lay to the High Court against the order of December 2, 1952. The proceedings commenced under the first Mysore Act, which provided for appeals to the High Court under Section 30. However, the first Mysore Act was repealed by the second Mysore Act, which was subsequently repealed by the Act. The Court examined whether the right of appeal under the first Mysore Act continued despite its repeal. The Court determined that the proceedings under Section 8 of the first Mysore Act were substantively similar to those under Section 5 of the second Mysore Act and Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, proceedings commenced under the first Mysore Act should be deemed to continue under the subsequent Acts. The Court concluded that by necessary intendment, the legislature intended that appeals should be governed by the provisions of the subsequent Acts, thus superseding the appeal provisions of the first Mysore Act. Consequently, the High Court erred in holding that appeals lay to it from the order of December 2, 1952. 3. Validity of the High Court's Issuance of a Writ of Certiorari Against the Order of December 2, 1952: The final issue was whether the High Court was justified in issuing a writ of certiorari against the order of December 2, 1952. The Court reiterated the principles for issuing certiorari, emphasizing that it corrects errors of jurisdiction, illegal exercise of jurisdiction, and manifest errors apparent on the face of the proceedings. The High Court had primarily interfered on the grounds that the Custodian-General lacked jurisdiction under Section 27, which the Supreme Court found to be incorrect. The Supreme Court held that the Custodian-General had jurisdiction to set aside the earlier order and that the subsequent proceedings were valid. Therefore, there was no basis for the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not have reviewed findings of fact or interfered without a patent error of law. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the Custodian's order dated December 2, 1952. The respondents retained the right to approach the Custodian-General, and no order as to costs was made.
|
