Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Mushtaq Ahmad and V. Bhargava, JJ.
RAVI PRATAB NARAIN SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ 7562 Of 1951
Decided On : 08/09/1951
{'KEYWORD': 'U. P. Court of Wards Act, 1912', 'SUBJECT': 'Declaration of Disqualification of Proprietor', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['Section 8 (1) (d) (v)', 'Section 8 (2)', 'Section 11', 'Section 13'], 'SUMMARY': 'The Court held that the declaration of disqualification of the petitioner as a proprietor under Section 8 (1) (d) (v) of the U. P. Court of Wards Act, 1912, was void due to non-compliance with the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 8, which required the Government to furnish the petitioner with a detailed statement of grounds for disqualification and to give him an opportunity to show cause why such a declaration should not be made. The Court interpreted the phrase "opportunity of showing cause" to mean an adequate opportunity to adduce evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and present a defense. The Court also held that the failure to provide such an opportunity was a jurisdictional error, rendering the declaration void. The Court further held that Section 11 of the Act, which barred challenges to declarations made under Section 8 in civil courts, did not apply to writs issued by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Additionally, the Court held that Section 13 of the Act, which provided for an alternative remedy by way of a reference to the State Government, did not provide an adequate remedy in the present case.'}
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a proprietor of an estate in Uttar Pradesh, challenged a declaration issued by the State Government under Section 8 (1) (d) (v) of the U. P. Court of Wards Act, 1912, declaring him a disqualified proprietor and assuming superintendence of his estate. The petitioner contended that the declaration was void due to non-compliance with the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 8, which required the Government to furnish him with a detailed statement of grounds for disqualification and to give him an opportunity to show cause why such a declaration should not be made. The petitioner also contended that Section 8 (1) (d) (v) of the Act was ultra vires in view of Article 19 (f) of the Constitution, which guaranteed the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the declaration of disqualification was void due to non-compliance with the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act. The Court interpreted the phrase "opportunity of showing cause" to mean an adequate opportunity to adduce evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and present a defense. The Court also held that the failure to provide such an opportunity was a jurisdictional error, rendering the declaration void. The Court further held that Section 11 of the Act, which barred challenges to declarations made under Section 8 in civil courts, did not apply to writs issued by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Additionally, the Court held that Section 13 of the Act, which provided for an alternative remedy by way of a reference to the State Government, did not provide an adequate remedy in the present case. The Court did not consider the constitutional challenge to Section 8 (1) (d) (v) of the Act in light of its finding that the declaration was void on other grounds.
Issues: 1. Whether the declaration of disqualification was void due to non-compliance with the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the U. P. Court of Wards Act, 1912? 2. Whether Section 8 (1) (d) (v) of the Act was ultra vires in view of Article 19 (f) of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted the phrase "opportunity of showing cause" in Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act to mean an adequate opportunity to adduce evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and present a defense. The Court held that the mere opportunity to submit a written explanation, as provided to the petitioner, did not constitute an adequate opportunity to show cause. 2. The Court held that the failure to provide an adequate opportunity to show cause was a jurisdictional error, rendering the declaration void. The Court reasoned that the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 8 were essential preliminaries to the exercise of the power to make a declaration of disqualification, and that the failure to comply with these provisions deprived the Government of jurisdiction to make the declaration.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition, quashed the declaration of disqualification, and directed that the petitioner be restored to possession of his property. The Court also awarded costs to the petitioner.
( 1 ) SHRI Lt. Sahabzada Ravi Pratap Narain Singh, Raja of Rudrapur Estate, Rudrapur, District deoria, has filed this petition, requesting this Court to issue a direction in the nature of a writ ob cerbiorari calling for all the records relating to the issue of a declaration under Section 8 (1) (d) (v ). U. P. Court of Warda Act, 1912 (Act iv [4] of 1912) for the assumption of superintendence of his estate by the Court of Wards, to quash the declaration and all the proceedings connected therewith and to direct the opposite party, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Court of Wards, u. P. , to hand over the estate of the petitioner to him. This request for issue of a writ of certiorari and other directions was based on two grounds: The first ground was that Section 8 (1) (d) (v), U. P. Court of Wards Act, 1912, was ultra vires inasmuch as it constituted an infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 19 (f) of the Constitution. The second ground was that, in making a declaration under Section 8, U. P, Court of Wards Act, the opposite-party was discharging a quasi-judicial function and, in doing so, it had contravened the fundamental principles of natural justice by not hearing the petitioner and giving him an opportunity to repudiate the charges.
( 2 ) THE petitioner, in order to establish these grounds, filed a lengthy affidavit with his petition. This was met by a counter affidavit filed on be. half of opposite party No. 2, the Court of Wards and there after a rejoinder-affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner. It appears unnecessary to set out in detail all the facts that have been given in these three lengthy affidavits. We need only mention a few salient facts which are necessary for the purpose of deciding the question whether a writ should or should not issue.
( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner is a proprietor within the meaning of the U. P. Court of Wards Act, owning an estate situated partly in the district of Gorakhpur and partly in the district of Deoria. He had been managing this property for a long time. On 29. 6. 1949, a notice was served on him by the Collector of Deoria, calling upon him to show cause why he should not be declarad a disqualified person Under Section (1) (d) (v), U. P. Court of Wards Act, 1912, on grounds of mismanagement. Five grounds of mismanagement were mentioned in the notice as follows:
1. That he exacted bigar from his tenants. 2. That he connived at his Ziledar, Shri Jageshwar Lal, extorting one anna per rupee of annual rent as pharkhatawan from each tenant at the time of realization of rent and issue of receipts as a consideration for issuing receipts. 3. That he did not allow remissions in rent sanctioned by Government on account of floods in 1354 Fasli to the extent of Rs. 557-12-5. (d) That he was addicted to drink and immoral habits to a degree rendering him incapable of managing his estate resulting in wide-spread complaint against the estate and its employees. 6. That he compelled families of Kahars to work for him on a ridiculously low wage of one anna pet day. The notice went on to say that the petitioner was to submit his explanation to the collector within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. The petitioner asked for extension of time to give his explanation and, within the time finally allowed, he submitted a written explanation to the Collector in which he refuted all the accusations which were made against him in the notice just mentioned. The petitioner denied that he exacted bigar from his tenants. He denied that he connived at his ziledar, Shri Jageshwar Lal, extorting one anna per rupee of annual rent as pharlchatawan from each tenant at the time of realization of rent and issue of receipts as a consideration for issuing receipts and further pleaded that Shri Jageshwar Lal had been transferred in accordance with the directions received from the Sub-divisional Officer and, there, fore, this question became irrelevant
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
