1951 (8) TMI 28 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ultra vires of Section 8(1)(d)(v) of the U.P. Court of Wards Act, 1912.
2. Violation of natural justice principles in the declaration process under Section 8 of the U.P. Court of Wards Act, 1912.
3. Nature of the function performed by the Government under Section 8.
4. Compliance with the requirements of Section 8(2) of the U.P. Court of Wards Act, 1912.
5. Jurisdictional validity of the declaration made by the State.
6. Applicability of Section 11 of the U.P. Court of Wards Act, 1912, in barring the writ of certiorari.
7. Availability of an alternative remedy under Section 13 of the U.P. Court of Wards Act, 1912.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Ultra Vires of Section 8(1)(d)(v) of the U.P. Court of Wards Act, 1912:
The petitioner argued that Section 8(1)(d)(v) was ultra vires as it infringed on his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(f) of the Constitution. However, the court did not find it necessary to examine this ground due to the decision on the second issue.

2. Violation of Natural Justice Principles:
The petitioner contended that the declaration under Section 8 was made without affording him an opportunity to be heard, thus violating natural justice principles. The court agreed with this contention, stating that the Government was performing a quasi-judicial function and should have provided the petitioner with an opportunity to contest the evidence and adduce his own.

3. Nature of the Function Performed by the Government:
The court referenced a previous decision (Avadhesh Pratap Singh v. The U.P. State) and agreed that the Government's action under Section 8 was quasi-judicial. This made it subject to review by a writ of certiorari.

4. Compliance with Requirements of Section 8(2):
The court examined whether the requirements of Section 8(2) were met. It was found that the notice served on the petitioner contained detailed grounds but did not provide an adequate opportunity to show cause. The court emphasized that merely allowing a written explanation was insufficient; an opportunity to lead evidence and contest the charges was necessary.

5. Jurisdictional Validity of the Declaration:
The court held that the failure to provide an adequate opportunity to show cause meant that the State Government acted without jurisdiction. The declaration was thus void.

6. Applicability of Section 11 in Barring the Writ of Certiorari:
The court dismissed the argument that Section 11 of the U.P. Court of Wards Act barred the issuance of a writ of certiorari. It clarified that the High Court, when issuing a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not act as a civil court.

7. Availability of an Alternative Remedy:
The court rejected the contention that an alternative remedy under Section 13 of the U.P. Court of Wards Act precluded the issuance of a writ of certiorari. It stated that the existence of an alternative remedy is relevant only for writs of mandamus, not for certiorari.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, quashed the declaration made under Section 8 of the U.P. Court of Wards Act, and directed that the petitioner be restored to possession of his property. The petitioner was awarded costs of Rs. 300.