Person to be held as aggrieved person against whom such order mad.

This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution to call for the record relating to the order dated 29th December, 1958, in Proceedings Ac. A.2/104/58 of the respondent, which purported to cancel the permanent allotment of the export and import rights and the renewal of lease of import and export rights given to the petitioner.

The petitioner is a displaced person from West Pakistan. By the proceedings dated 17th April, 1947, the Additional Custodian of Evacuee Property, Madras, granted to the petitioner, the proprietor of Messrs. Oceanic Agencies, a lease of the import and export quota rights possessed by Sri Hussain Kasam Dada, who had been declared to be an evacuee. That lease was granted under section 10 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, and was for a period of one year. It was then renewed for a further period of one year on 16th February, 1958. Under instructions from the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Bombay, the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property enquired of the petitioner on 26th February, 1958 whether he would prefer to get the Export and Import quota rights permanently allotted to him for a capitalised value of Rs. 4,000 on certain terms and conditions. The petitioner expressed his willingness and accepting the offer deposited a sum of Rs. 3,200 after deducting Rs. 800 already paid as the premia for the temporary lease and the renewal thereof. This deduction was made on the strength of a letter of the Assistant Custodian who agreed that credit would be given for the premia in case the petitioner decided to take the permanent quota for the sum of Rs. 4,000. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner, that his acceptance resulted in a concluded contract, under which he was entitled to the permanent quota rights.

The respondent, has contested that position. He stated that the Assistant Custodian only recommended to the Regional Settlement Officer the permanent allotment of quota right to the petitioner, but that no reply had been received from the Regional Settlement Officer accepting the same and that therefore there was no concluded contract. It is then said that certain complaints were received by the Additional Custodian of Evacuee Property from which it was ascertained that the petitioner’s family really owned four firms in different names, under which they were able to acquire four distinct quota rights all of them for the benefit of the same family. In those circumstances, the Additional Custodian of Evacuee Property issued a notice dated 15th November, 1958, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the permanent allotment offered to the petitioner should not be cancelled as he and his brother-in-law had fraudulently obtained allotment of the good-will of several firms without divulging their relationship inter se and as the allotment standing in different names were ultimately run for the benefit of a single family thus monopolising the benefit of several allotments in excess of his requirement and also for the reason that the petitioner had been trafficking in the licences issued without actually importing the goods, thus violating the import trade control regulations. The notice also mentioned about the violations of the conditions of the lease granted to the petitioner, and called upon the petitioner to show cause within a week from the receipt of the notice as to why the permanent right offered to him should not be cancelled. In the notice there is no mention of the cancellation of the lease although the non-compliance with the conditions of the lease were adverted to in the preamble to the notice. The petitioner offered his explanation and was also given a personal hearing. It was found by the Collector of Central Excise that one family was virtually running the business, and various allotments were obtained by them without disclosing the relationship. After referring to certain malpractices the respondent proceeded to pass an order on 29th December, 1958, can