The discretion conferred by Section 40 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 on the Custodian to grant or reject an application for confirmation must be exercised in accordance with established principles of justice and not arbitrarily or capriciously, fraudulently or without factual basis.

A.N.Bhandari, J.

1. This appeal under Clause 10 of, the Letters Patent raises the question whether the Assistant Custodian was justified in declining to confirm a certain sale under the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 40 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950.

2. On the 22nd September, 1947 Mehar Chand petitioner purchased two houses, one from Dehru for a sum of Rs. 700/- and the other from Hussain for a sum of Rs. 300/-. He applied to the Custodian for confirmation of the sales but his application was rejected by the Assistant Custodian by means of a small order which was in the following terms:

"The transaction relates to sale of house situated in rural area. The Custodian has by his order dated 29th January, 1950 decided that all such transactions shall be treated as relating to land in rural areas. In view of this, the application for confirmation of transaction is dismissed. However, claim for Rs. 700/- will he entered in the register as an-unsecured claim....."

3. The petitioner presented a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the Assistant Custodian did not exercise the jurisdiction which has been vested in him by Section 40 of the Act of 1950. He accordingly accepted the petition, set aside the order in question and directed that the application of the petitioner for confirmation of the sales be dealt with in accordance with law. The State has appealed, and the question for this Court is whether the learned Single Judge has come to correct determination in-point of law.

4. Section 40 of the Administration at Eva-cuee Property Act, 1950 declares that no transfer made after the 14th day of August, 1947 by or on behalf of any person in any manner whatsoever of any property belonging to him shall be effective so as to confer any rights or remedies in respect of the transfer on the parties thereto if, at anytime after the transfer, the transferor becomes an evacuee or the property of the transferor is declared or notified to be evacuee property unless the transfer is confirmed by the Custodian in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Sub-section (4) of this section is in the following terms:

"(4) Where an application under Sub-section (1) has been made to the Custodian for confirmation, he shall hold an inquiry in respect thereof in the prescribed manner and may reject the application if he is of opinion that; (a) the transaction has not been entered into in good faith or for valuable consideration; or

(b) the transaction is prohibited under any law for the time being in force; or

(c) the transaction ought not to be confirmed for any other reason."

5. Two questions arise for decision in the present case, namely (1) whether the doctrine of ejusdem generis applies to Clause (c) of sub-section (4) reproduced above; and (2) whether the Assistant Custodian was justified in dismissing the petitioners application for confirmation on the ground only that the Custodian had directed that such transactions should not be confirmed.

6. The first question can be easily disposed of. The rule of ejusdem generis is that where particular words are followed by general, the general words should not be construed in their widest sense but should be held as applying to objects, persons or things of the same general nature or class as those specifically enumerated, unless of course there is a clear manifestation of a contrary purpose. Or to put in a slightly different language, where general and special words which are capable of analogous meaning are associated together, they take colour from each other and the general words are restrained and limited to a sense analogous to the less general, Ejusdem generis is a rule of construction which enables a Court to ascertain the intention of the Legislature when the intention is not clear, and does not warrant the Court in subverting or