( 1 ) THESE are two applications under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that this Court might be pleased to issue writs in the nature of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus for different acts alleged to have been done by the respondents. The first of these applications has been filed by the Asiatic Engineering Co. Ltd. (hereinafter called the Company) and its writ application number is 287 of 1950. The second application has been presented to this Court by a foreign Company, the Amin Agencies Ltd. , and its number is 288 of 1950. Broadly speaking, the main facts which have given rise to them are the same, but we propose first of all to set out in brief the salient features of application No. 287 and thereafter deal with those distinguishing facts on which application No. 288 of 1950 is founded.

( 2 ) THE Company was incorporated as a private company under the Indian Companies Act in 1941 and has its registered office at 25/26 Waterloo Street, Calcutta, in the State of West Bengal. It is stated in the petition that the Company had and still has its registered office at Calcutta and branch offices at, inter alia, Kanpur and London. The words "inter alia" appear to have been used, whether deliberately or not, only to conceal the fact that the Company also functions at Karachi in Pakistan.

( 3 ) THE main business this Company appears to have been carrying on is that of importing machinery from abroad and repairing and reconditioning it. For this purpose it used to maintain two establishments, one at Kanpur and the other at Calcutta. Though it is alleged in the petition that the Hindu share-holders were numerically more than the Muslim share-holders of the company, yet it would appear that the value of the shares held by the Hindu members of the company at the time of the petition was negligible as compared with that held by the Muslim share-holders.

( 4 ) THE Companys case is that inasmuch as its head office is situate in the State of West Bengal it is not subject to any of the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act as that state is exempt from the operation of the Act. It is claimed that no proceedings can be initiated or continued under the said Act against or affecting the properties of the petitioner. It is specifically stated in the application that the petitioner carries on business only in the Indian union and has not acquired any interest in any evacuee property anywhere in Pakistan nor has it any intention of doing so. In other words, the Companys case is that, as a limited Company with an Indian domicile and its head office at Calcutta it is not subject to the pro- visions of the evacuee Property Act, that diverse orders have been issued and proceedings initiated against the petitioner, that they affect its rights to hold and own properties belonging to it at Kanpur and that they are without jurisdiction. The acts complained of are : (a) An attachment order of the property of which the Company is the owner by the Custodian of Evacuee Property, Lucknow, through the Deputy Custodian and the Assistant Collector of all properties and assets held by the company in Uttar Pradesh. (b) A demand with which the Company has complied under compulsion on its director incharge at Kanpur office, Mr. Bhalwala, to furnish a security to the extent of RS. 1,20,000 which has since been raised to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000. (c)Appointment of a Manager, cum-Accountant, for a few months at Kanpur and compelling the company to pay out of its funds Rs. 250 per month. . It is stated that a fresh notice for fresh appointment of a Manager-cum-Accountant has been served on the Company. (d) Daily interference with the day-to-day administration of the Company by issue of diverse orders. (e)Requiring the Company to produce documents and papers under threat of penalties and compelling it to comply with orders as if the Company was identical with its share-holders and as if the proceedings directly relate to the adjud