( 1 ) THIS application which has been presented to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, has been referred to the Full Bench by two learned Judges of this Court by their reference order dated 15th September 1952.

( 2 ) THE applicants, who number four persons, namely, Shrimati Maqbul-un-nisa, Razia Begum, iqbal Ahmad and Sarkar Ali have applied to this Court for a writ in the nature of mandamus or alternatively for directions or orders directing the opposite parties to forbear from giving effect to the order asking the petitioners to leave India or getting their order executed by their subordinate officers. The question is whether the relief of the nature claimed by the applicants should be granted in this case.

( 3 ) A few facts may be given shortly. Akhtar All left India for Pakistan in 1947. He wanted his wife, Razia Begum, who is applicant No. 2 before us, to accompany him to that country. After some hesitation, she decided to go with her husband to Pakistan. Maqtaul-un-nisa is the mother of Razia Begum. She was also eventually prevailed upon to accompany Akhtar Ali. The adopted son of Maqbal-un-nisa, Iqbal Ahmad as also the son Sarkar Ali, who is about 6 years old, and who is under the guardianship of Razia Begum, also accompanied Akhtar Ali. On reaching pakistan, Akhtar Ali decided to leave for England and left the petitioners un-provided for. The petitioners wanted to return as early as possible, but in the meantime the permit system was introduced. Having failed to obtain a permit for permanent re-settlement, the petitioners came back to India in September 1949 on a three months temporary permit.

( 4 ) IN 1949 the Deputy Commissioner of Unnao was moved by the petitioner for permission to live permanently in India as Indian nationals. The Deputy Commissioner recommended their application for a permanent re-settlement to the State Government; but, in view of the fact that their temporary permit was to expire shortly, they had to go back to Pakistan. Thereafter, they came back to India in the early part of 1949 on a regular permit issued by the High commissioners office and their case is that since then they had been living in their village when quite suddenly on 17-5-1951 the petitioners 1, 3 and 4 received a letter intimating that their permit had been cancelled and ordering them to leave India within a fortnight. Later Petitioner no. 2 received a communication from the State Government on 10-1-1951 directing her to proceed to Pakistan; They have now come up to this Court for a writ of mandamus, direction or order, directing the Union of India and the State Government not to carry out their order.

( 5 ) THE first point that we have to consider is a preliminary objection which has been raised to the hearing of this application by the learned Additional Standing Counsel, Shri B. K. Dhaon, In an argument characterised by considerable ability Shri Dhaon has contended that this Court has, under Article 226 of the Constitution, no power or authority to issue a writ, direction or order against the Union Govt. as that Govt. is not situate within the jurisdiction of this Court. He has further contended that an order or direction against the State Government will be ineffective as the State Government is, under the Constitution, bound to give effect to the direction of the union Government. His contention is that the State Government should not be placed in a position where it has to choose between the orders of this Court and that of the Union government.

( 6 ) THE argument which has been advanced by Mr. Dhaon rests upon the interpretation that he has placed upon Article 226 (1) of the Constitution which we reproduce below:

"notwithstanding anything in Article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs in