1955 (2) TMI 30 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Validity of orders passed by the Assistant Custodian General located outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court.
3. Competency of the High Court to issue writs to local tribunals when the final order is passed by a higher authority located outside its jurisdiction.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
The primary issue in these appeals is whether the High Court of Punjab & Haryana has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs when the final orders were passed by the Assistant Custodian General, whose office is located in Delhi, beyond the territorial limits of the High Court.

Article 226 of the Constitution states:
"Notwithstanding anything in Art. 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III & for any other purpose."

The judgment emphasizes two conditions for jurisdiction under Article 226:
1. The writs can only be issued within the territories where the High Court exercises jurisdiction.
2. The writs can only be issued to persons, authorities, or governments within those territories.

2. Validity of Orders Passed by the Assistant Custodian General:
The Assistant Custodian General, who passed the final orders in the cases, is located in Delhi, beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Supreme Court's decision in 'Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Rao' (AIR 1953 SC 210) was cited, where it was held that the High Court of Madras could not issue any writ under Article 226 to the Election Commission having its offices permanently located at New Delhi. This principle was affirmed in 'K.S. Rashid and Son v. Income-tax Investigation Commission' (AIR 1954 SC 207), which reiterated that the High Court's writs cannot extend beyond its territorial jurisdiction and must be issued to persons or authorities within those territories.

3. Competency of the High Court to Issue Writs to Local Tribunals:
The appellants argued that since the original orders were passed by local tribunals within the jurisdiction of the High Court, the writs could be issued to these local authorities, even though the final orders were passed by the Assistant Custodian General in Delhi. This argument was based on the Rajasthan High Court's decisions in 'Barkatali v. Custodian General of Evacuee Property of India' (AIR 1954 Raj 214) and 'Har Prasad v. Union of India' (AIR 1954 Raj 189), where it was held that writs could be issued to local authorities if the superior authority merely dismissed the revision petitions without modifying the original orders.

However, the Punjab & Haryana High Court disagreed with this reasoning. The Court held that the orders of the Assistant Custodian General superseded those of the local tribunals and thus were the orders in dispute. Issuing writs to local tribunals would result in contradictory orders, which is not contemplated in a discretionary remedy by way of a writ petition.

The Allahabad High Court's decision in 'Hafiz Mohammad Yusuf v. Custodian General, Evacuee Properties, New Delhi' (AIR 1954 All 433) was cited, which held that the order of a lower court merges into that of an appellate or revisional authority. Thus, the High Court could not issue writs to local authorities when the final order was passed by a higher authority outside its jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana concluded that it has no jurisdiction to issue writs under Article 226 to the Assistant Custodian General located in Delhi. The appeals were dismissed on the grounds that the orders of the Assistant Custodian General superseded those of the local tribunals, and the High Court could not issue writs to authorities outside its territorial jurisdiction. The appeals were dismissed without any order as to costs.