Judgment Wanchoo, CJ.-This is an application by Dungardas and another under Article 226 of the Constitution against the Custodian Evacuee Property, Rajasthan, and the Deputy Custodian Evacuee Property, Ganganagar.

2. Dungardas’s case briefly was that certain proceedings were taken against him by the Additional Custodian, Ganganagar, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8000/-said to have been deposited with him by one Moulabux who later became an evacuee. These proceedings were dropped in August, 1949. Thereafter, fresh proceedings in the same master were started by the Deputy Custodian, Evacuee Property Ganganagar in October, 1952. Dungardas objected to fresh proceedings being taken on the ground that the matter had already been adjudicated upon in 1949. This objection was overruled, and Dungardas was directed to deposit the amount along with 6% interest. He preferred an appeal to the Custodian, which was dismissed. Thereafter, he went in revision to the Custodian General, New Delhi, and the revision was dismissed on 7-1-1955. The other applicant Sohan-singh has been joined because during the proceedings in the Evacuee Department he became surety for the payment of the amount by Dungardas. The present application was filed in February, 1955, after the Custodian General had rejected the revision of the applicant.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised that this Court has no jurisdiction to pass any order against the Custodian General, New Delhi, and as the order of the Deputy Custodian, Ganganagar, has been upheld and confirmed by the Custodian General in revision, the applicant cannot ask this Court to issue a writ to the Deputy Custodian Ganganagar as that would not be of any help to the applicant.

4. Asimilar case came before this Court in ‘Barkat All vs. Custodian-General of Evacuee Property 1954 Raj 214 (AIR V 41) (A). In that case, it was held by the Bench, to which one of us was a party, that where the Custodian General merely dismissed the revision, ‘and the order of the Authority in Rajasthan stood as it was, the order, which would really be in dispute in this Court would be the order of the Authority in Rajasthan, and not the order of the Custodian General. It was also held that it would be sufficient in those circumstances to issue a writ to the Authority ‘in Rajasthan, and that it would not be necessary’ to issue any writ to the Custodial General. The only case that was available as that time was ‘Election Commission, India vs. Saka Venkata Rao’, 1953 SC 210(AIR V 40) (B), and in that case the question as to which High Court would have jurisdiction was left open in cases where the Authority claiming exercise ofjurisdiction ever a matter at first instance was located in one State, and the Appellate Court was located in another State. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties however submits that since then there have been decisions of other Courts which have taken a view contrary to the decision in ‘Barkat Ali’s case (A)’, and that the Supreme Court has approved of the view taken by the other Courts. Our attention in this connection has been drawn to

.(1) ‘Hafiz Mohammad Yusufv. The Custodian General, Evacuee Properties, New Delhi’, 1954 All 433(AIR V41)

.(C) (2) ‘Azmat Ullah vs. The Custodian, Evacuee Property, U. P. Lucknow’, 1955 All 435 (AIR V 42) (FB) (D),

.(3) ‘Burhanpur National Textile Workers Union, Burhanpur vs. Labour Appellate Tribunal “of India at Bombay’, 1955 Nag 148 ((5) AIR V 42) (E), (4) ‘Joginder Singh Waryam Singh vs. Director Rural Rehabilitation, Pepsu’, 1955 Pepsu 91 ((5) AIR V 42) (F). We do not think it ne’cessary to discuss these cases in detail. Suffice it to say that the view taken in these cases is that the order of the Authority which passed it originally is merged in the order of the Appellate or Revisional Court, and if the Appellate or Revisional Court is located beyond the territories over which a High Court has jurisdiction, it would not be possible for the High Court to issue a writ in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document