( 1 ) THIS appeal is against an order made by V. R. Sen, J. , on the 26th November 1954 dismissing Miscellaneous Petition No. 317 of 1954. By that petition the petitioner Premchand asked the High Court to quash an order dated the 22nd december 1953, passed by the Additional Custodian of Evacuee Property, Madhya pradesh, and confirmed on appeal by the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, jabalpur, on 15th January 1953. It is admitted that the order of the Deputy custodian was taken up in revision by the petitioner before the Custodian-General, new Delhi, and that the revision application failed. The order of the Custodian-General has not been exhibited in these proceedings.

( 2 ) ON the authority of a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in election Commission v. Venkata Rao, 1953 SCR 1144: (AIR 1953 SC 210) (A), affirmed later by their Lordships in Rashid and Son v. Income-tax Investigation commission, AIR 1954 SC 207 (B), the learned single Judge declined to quash the orders of the intermediate tribunals on the ground that the writ of this High Court cannot reach the Custodian-General. The learned single Judge also referred to certain decisions of this High Court, particularly in Shamji Naranji v. State of madhya Pradesh, M. P. No. 42 of 1952 D/-27-2-1953 (Nag) (C) and Burhanpur national Textile Workers Union v. Labour Appellate Tribunal, M. P. No. 300 of 1953 d/- 29-10-1953 since reported in ILR 1955 Nag 108: ( (S) AIR 1955 Nag 148) (D ). The reason given by the learned single Judge is that the order of the Deputy custodian must be deemed to have merged in the order or the Custodian-General, and that since the writ of this Court cannot run beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court the order of the Custodian-General cannot be touched and it is useless to quash the intermediate orders of the Tribunal situated within the jurisdiction of this Court. The learned single Judge also followed a Division Bench decision of the allahabad High Court, reported in Hafiz Mohammad Yusuf v. Custodian-General, evacuee Properties, New Delhi, AIR 1954 All 433 (E ).

( 3 ) IT is contended that the view expressed in these several cases needs to be reconsidered in the light of the pronouncement of the Bombay High Court, reported in Sipahinalani v. Fidahussein, 58 Bom LR 344 (F ). In that case the learned Chief justice of the Bombay High Court and Dixit, J. , ruled that the High Court can quash an order even though it be confirmed on revision by the Custodian-General because the order of the intermediate tribunal does not merge in that of the custodian-General. The learned counsel appearing for the Custodian drew our attention to several other cases in which this point has come up for decision and a view contrary to that of the Bombay High Court has been taken. Chief among them is the decision of Allahabad High Court, reported in Azmat Ullah v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, (S) AIR 1955 All 435 (FB) (G); Dungardas v. Custodian, Rajas-than, AIR 1956 Raj 163 (H); Collector of Customs v. A. H. A. Rahiman, (S) AIR 1957 Mad 496 (I); and Joginder Singh v. Director, Rural rehabilitation, (S) AIR 1955 Pepsu 91 (J ). No doubt, in none of these cases was the Bombay decision referred to, but the result reached is exactly contrary to that reached in the Bombay case.

( 4 ) WE have thus to consider whether the view taken in the Bombay High Court is the correct one. It may be pointed out that the Bombay decision was given before the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, reported in T. K. Musaliar v. Venkatachalam, (S) AIR 1956 SC 246 (K ). In that case their Lordships drew a distinction between those cases where a subordinate agency works within the jurisdiction of the High Court under the direction of a superior situated outside, but independently, and those cases in which the order of a superior tribunal which cannot be reached remains outstanding, and the anomaly of two contradictory orders comes into existence. Their Lordships re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document