( 1 ) THIS is a petition by Boodan praying for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order to be issued by this Court against the Assistant Custodian General commanding him to produce the record of the case referred to in the petition and thereafter to quash the order made by the Assistant Custodian General on the 19th January 1959.

( 2 ) IT appears that in respect of certain plots of land bhumidhari rights were claimed. These plots of land were evacuee property and under the law bhumidhari rights in respect of evacuee property could only be granted by the Custodian of the Evacuee Properties on the fulfilment of certain conditions. Certain orders were made by an Assistant Custodian (Judicial) I, Meerut. Thereafter a petition in revision was made and final orders on that revision appear to have been made by the Assistant Custodian General. The Assistant Custodian General happened to be functioning at Lucknow.

( 3 ) A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the respondents to the effect that this petition was not entertainable by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on the ground that the "case" out of which this writ petition had arisen did not "arise within the area" over which the lucknow Bench could exercise jurisdiction under the provisions of Clause 14 of the amalgamation Order. It was pointed in this connection that the plots of land in respect of which bhumidhari rights were claimed and in respeet of which the order of the Assistant Custodian general had been made were situate at Meerut which was not one of the areas over which the lucknow Bench exercised jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in writ petition of Baldco Ram v. Deputy commr. of Gonda, Writ Petn. No. 279 of 1958 : (AIR 1959 All 460), wherein a Bench of this court, of which I had the privilege of being a member held, that the Lucknow Bench could validly entertain a petition for writ only when a case arose within an area which was amenable to the jurisdication of the Lucknow Bench under the Amalgamation Order. Badloo Rams case was a converse! case, for there the origin of the dispute or the origin of the case was at Gonda which was admittedly within the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench, but the order -- the final order which was the subject of challenge in the writ petition -- was made by the Excise Commissioner at Allahabad where he had his permanent office. In Badloo Rams case the preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents and the preliminary objection was on the ground stated above rejected by the Bench. I am bound by the bench Decision in Badloo Rams case but Mr. Dhaon, who appeared on behalf of the present petitioner Boodan, contended that he was not bound by it and that he could argue to show that the decision in Badlco Rams petition was incorrect or at any rate needed reconsideration. Since I was a party to that decision, I was most anxious to know from Mr. Dhaon where we had gone wrong in Badloo Rams case. I, therefore, let Mr. Dhaon say all he had to in regard to this rather important question.

( 4 ) THE main contention of Mr. Dhaon was that the decision in Badloo Rams petition proceeded on the assumption that Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order was intra vires the Constitution; it is undoubtedly true that in Badloo Rams case nobody contended that Clause 14 of the amalgamation Order was in any manner nut in jeopardy by any constitutional provision. What mr. Dhaon contended was that when the Amalgamation Order was drawn up or passed. e. in 1948, there were no constitutional guarantees for the citizen and therefore, when the framers of the Amalgamation Order used the word "case" in Clause 14 of that Order, they only had in mind such cases as could have arisen at that time. Mr. Dhaon contended that they could not possibly have thought of cases which could arise subsequently for the enforcement of the constitutional guarantees and they could not therefore contemplate