JUDGMENT

GUPTA, J. :—A notice issued under Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the Act) gives rise to this appeal brought on certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court on August 18, 1969 under Article 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. Sub-section (1) of Section 7 states :

"Where the Custodian is of opinion that any property is evacuee property within the meaning of this Act, he may, after causing notice thereof to be given in such manner as may be prescribed to the persons interested, and after holding such inquiry into the matter as the circumstances of the case permit, pass an order declaring any such property to be evacuee property."

Rule 6 of the Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950 (hereinafter called the Rules) which lays down the manner of inquiry under Section 7 provides in sub-rule (1) that where the Custodian is satisfied from information in his possession or otherwise that any property or an interest therein is prima facie evacuee property, he shall cause a notice to be served in the prescribed form on the person claiming title to such property or interest and on any other person or persons whom he considers to be interested in the property. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 says that the notice "shall, as far as practicable, mention the grounds on which the property is sought to be declared evacuee property and shall specify the provision of the Act under which the person claiming any title to, or interest in, such property is alleged to be an evacuee". "Evacuee" has been defined in Section 2 (d) of the Act to include several categories of persons, but for the purpose of this case it is necessary to refer only to first three of them. The relevant part of the definition is as follows:

"2 (d) "evacuee" means any person, -

(i) who, on account of the setting up of the Dominions of India and Pakistan or on account of civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances, leaves or has, on or after the 1st day of March, 1947, left, any place in a State for any place outside the territories now forming part of India, or

(ii) who is resident in any place now forming part of Pakistan and who for that reason is unable to occupy, supervise or manage in person his property in any part of the territories to which this Act extends, or whose property in any part of the said territories has ceased to be occupied, supervised or managed by any person or is being occupied, supervised or managed by an unauthorised person, or

(iii) who has, after the 14th day of August, 1947, obtained, otherwise than by way of purchase or exchange, any right to interest in or benefit from any property which is treated as evacuee or abandoned property under any law for the time being in force in Pakistan."

The appellant was declared an evacuee by the Assistant Custodian (Judicial), Deoria. Having failed to have the declaration set aside by the appellate and the revisional authorities under the Act, the appellant moved the High Court by a writ petition challenging the notice under Section 7 and the subsequent proceeding based on it. This appeal is from the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition in limine. The notice in question was issued by the Assistant Custodian, Evacuee Property, Deoria, to the appellant and his brother Bashir Ahmad on March 11, 1954 stating that there was "credible information in possession of the Custodian" that they were evacuees under clause (iii) of Section 2 (d) of the Act and calling upon them to show cause why orders should not be passed declaring them evacuees and their property as evacuee property. The notice purports to have been issued in accordance with Rule 6 which requires a statement of the factual grounds on which the notice is based. The notice in this case appears to be merely a copy of the prescribed form without particulars. The ground stated in the notice reproduces only what the form contains and that is as follows:

"Acquisition of any righ