Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I. : This is a writ petition filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution by which the eight petitioners challenged the validity of S. 87-B of the Code of Civil Procedure. These petitioners claim that they and respondent No. 2. His Highness Maharaja Kirit Vikram Kishore Deb Varma, are members of a joint Hindu family governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law. Under a family custom which it is alleged, has prevailed in this family for centuries, the Raj as well as the Zamindari properties belonging to the family are held by a single individual and the others members of the family are entitled to maintenance according to the status of the family with the right to succession to the Raj as well as the Zamindari properties under the general rules of succession which prevails and which is not inconsistent with the family custom. The head of the family was, by family custom, called the Chief and he was chosen from among the members of the Ruling Deb Barban family and used to the installed on the Gaddi or Thorne. The petitioners further alleged that the Ruler when so chosen and installed held the State and Zamindari as a life tenant subject to the usual charges for maintenance of the members of the Ruling Family.

2. In course of time, the maintenance allowance of the members of the Ruling Family came to be fixed arbitrarily by the Rulers without any regard to their status and their legitimate needs, and that led to discontent among them which resulted in a serious agitation raised by them during the lifetime of the late Maharaja Bir Bikram. In consequence, at the time of Regency of Her Highness Rajmata during the minority of the last Ruler Maharaja Kirit Bikram, a Committee was appointed on the 20th June 1949 to consider the question of allowances payable to the members of the Ruling Family. However before the Committee could submit its report, the State of Tripura merged with and became part of India and was constituted into a separate Province under the Chief Commissioner.

3. After merger, the then Chief Commissioner Mr. Hazra submitted a proposal to the Ministry of States on the 12th April 1951 recommending a revision of allowances paid to the maintenance-holders. The Ministry of States did not accept this proposal and refused to make any increase in the total expenditure on the allowances to the maintenance-holders. This order was passed on the 23rd May 1951. Later, the then officiating Chief Commissioner Maj. Chatterjee stopped the maintenance allowances paid to some of the maintenance-holders without justification and that led to the appointment of another Committee to go into the matter; but the Committee could never function with the result that the condition of the majority of the maintenance-holders grew worse day by day. That is why the present eight petitioners desire to file a suit against respondent No. 2 for appropriate reliefs. They want to implead the Union of India also to that suit, because it is their case that either the Ruler or the Union of India is responsible to pay them appropriate and adequate maintenance allowance.

4. Before filing a suit in a competent court of law against respondent No. 2, the petitioners are required to obtain the sanction of the Union Government under S. 87B, C.P.C., as respondent No. 2 is a Ruler of a former Indian State within the meaning of the said section. A request made by the petitioners for such sanction was rejected by the Central Government. That is how the present petition has been filed challenging the validity of the said section. The petitioners contend that the said section is ultra vires, because it contravenes Arts. 14 and 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution and as such, the condition precedent prescribed by it which requires the previous sanction of the Central Government before filing a suit against the Ruler of an Indian State therein mentioned, is invalid and inoperative. That is the genesis of the present writ petition.

5. At the hearing of this wr