KIDWAI, J. :- The petitioner, referred to in these proceedings as the Rani is the widow of Thakur Jai Inder Bahadur Singh, late Taluqdar of Mahewa who died on 14-11-1943.

2. On 1st July, 1923 Jai inder Bahadur made a gift to the Rani of 8 villages assessed to a Government Revenue of Rs. 10,000/. Subsequently the Rani purchased other properties also and was in possession of them till 11-5-1934 when the Court of Wards, U.P., assumed superintendence of her estate by virtue of declaration made by the Government under S. 8(1)(b) of the U.P. Court of Wards Act. When the new constitution of India came into operation, the Court of wards was in possession and the Rani does not seem to have raised any legal objection to this continued possession, though after the death of her husband, she repeatedly petitioned the Government to release her estate on the ground that she could manage it herself.

3. On 2-4-1952 a decision was pronounced by a Division Bench of this Court - vide Mrs. A. Cracknell v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1952 All 746 (A), in which it was Held that the provisions of, S. 8(1)(b), of the U.P. Court of Wards Act, being in derogation of Arts. 14, 15 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution are null and void under Art. 13(1) of the constitution.

4. When this decision came to be known, the U.P. Government issued orders that all estates held by the Court of Wards under S. 8(1)(b) of the Court of Wards Act should be released unless their proprietors applied under S. 10, Court of Wards Act, and some estates were released in pursuance of this order. The Ranis estate was, however, not released in spite of her application and it seems that some modification was made in the original orders issued by the Government. The extent and effect of this modification was a matter of some dispute but this is immaterial for the purpose of these proceedings.

5. The Rani, not haying been granted the relief to which she considered herself entitled by reason of the law as declared by the Division Bench of this Court in - AIR 1952 All 746 (A), has moved this Court to exercise its power under Art. 226 of the Constitution and to issue writs in the nature of mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or such of them as may be appropriate for granting the under mentioned reliefs :

"(1) That the opposite party may be directed to release the petitioners estate forthwith, handing over to her all cash, securities and other moveable properties appertaining to her estate :

"(2) The opposite parties may be directed to submit, for examination by this Honble Court, all records, correspondence and other relevant papers disclosing the dealings by the opposite parties of the petitioners estate and its belongings since the enactment of the Constitution;

"(3) That after an examination of the relevant materials this Honble Court may be pleased to direct the opposite parties to reimburse the petitioner for any losses arising from any illegal and unwarranted action of the opposite parties or any of them, and to pass such other orders as the ends of justice may require :"

6. An interim order was also prayed for and was issued by one of us by which the opposite parties concerned were directed "not to dispose of the funds belonging to the petitioner or appertaining to her estate and not to create any liabilities either on the petitioner or on her estate pending the disposal of this application." 7. The opposite parties were the State of the Uttar Pradesh, no doubt, as the authority having supervisory control over the Court of Wards, the Revenue Secretary U.P. Government, the U.P. Court of Wards, the President Court of Wards and the Deputy Commissioner who has control under the orders of the Court of Wards, over the Ranis estate. The Deputy Commissioner of Barabanki acting for the Court of Wards, Ganeshpur estate applied to be impleaded and that estate claiming to be a creditor of the Ranis estate would be seriously affected by the decision on this petition. This applicat