This is an appeal from an Order of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, made on the 19th July, 1944.

On the 14th June, 1944, the High Court, on the application of the respondents, issued a rule nisi calling upon the appellant to show cause why an information in the nature of quo warranto should not be exhibited against him “as to by what authority he is exercising and performing or claiming to exercise or perform the powers and duties which may be performed or exercised by the Chairman and the Commissioners of the Howrah Municipality.” By the said Order of the 19th July, 1944, the High Court made absolute the rule nisi. On the 14th December, 1944, the High Court ordered that the appellant’s appeal to His Majesty in Council against the said Order of the 19th July, 1944, be admitted.

The facts leading to the issue of the said Orders of the High Court are simple. On the 9th June, 1944, His Excellency the Governor of Bengal, purporting to act under the powers conferred on him by rule 51-F of the Defence of India Rules, made an Order superseding the Commissioners of the Howrah Municipality for a period of one year, with effect from the 9th June, 1944, and directing that the appellant should exercise and perform all the powers and duties which might be exercised, or performed, by or on behalf of the Chairman and the Commissioners during the period of supersession.

The appellant in his case raised two questions:-

(1) whether the High Court had jurisdiction to make the order of the 19th July, 1944, and, if so

(2) whether there was any evidence before the High Court which justified the making of that Order.

In argument, however, the appellant, mindful of the fact that the period of supersession of the Howrah Municipality had expired, confined his case entirely to the first question, namely, that of jurisdiction. Their Lordships, therefore find it unnecessary to express any opinion upon the merits of the dispute leading to the said appointment of the appellant, and they confine themselves in this judgment entirely to the question of the jurisdiction of the High Court to make the Order under appeal.

An information in the nature of quo warranto is the modern procedure replacing the obsolete High Prerogative Writ of quo warranto. It is used to try the civil right to a public office. For the purpose of this appeal it is conceded by the appellant:-

(1) That, by virtue of the Order of the Governor of Bengal, made on the 9th June, 1944, the appellant took possession of an office of a nature for which the information might be granted;

(2) That the Municipality of Howrah is outside the territorial limits of the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the said High Court, though within the Presidency of Bengal; and

(3) That the appellant resides outside the limits of such jurisdiction but is a servant of Government, being a Deputy Magistrate.

The leading judgment in the High Court was given by Mr. Justice Das the Acting Chief Justice concurring in a less detailed judgment. Mr. Justice Das dealt fully with the origin and extent of the Original Civil Jurisdiction of the High Court of Calcutta and its predecessor, the Supreme Court of Calcutta in relation to the power to issue High Prerogative Writs. This subject had been discussed in many of its aspects in the recent decision of this Board in Parlakimedi’s case1.

The conclusions of the High Court may be summarised as follows:-

(1) By virtue of the Regulating Act of 1773, the Charter of 1774, and the Act of Settlement of 1781, the Supreme Court of Calcutta possessed Original Civil Jurtsdiction of a territorial nature over all persons within the town of Calcutta and a personal jurisdiction over certain classes of persons, including British subjects and servants of the East India Company, outside such territorial limits but within what may be roughly called the Presidency of Bengal, but such personal jurisdiction was confined by the Act of 1781 to actions for wrongs and tresp