JASWANTSINGHJI JU DEO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, the son, through the second wife, of the late Maharaja, Ruler of Datia (in Bundelkhand) has filed this writ petition challenging (by way of amendment, which was allowed by my order dated 28th April 1969) the refusal of the Central Government to give permission to sue the present Ruler (being son of the late Maharaja by his first wife) on the basis of a will said to have been executed by the late Maharaja in the year 1936 and a codicil dated 23rd June, 1938; copies of the will and codicil have been made Annexures A and B to the petition. The Maharaja died in Bombay on 3rd September, 1965. The petitioner stated that he learnt of the will and codicil from the present Maharaja of Dharangadhra, the same having been deposited with the father of Maharaja of Dhrangadhra. As per the petitioner's request Her Highness the Maharani Sahiba of Dhrangadhra sent the copies of the will and codicil to the petitioner along with a covering letter, dated the 2nd July, 1963.

(2.) The petitioner had applied for permission, in terms of Section 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure, to the Central Government to sue the present Ruler. The petitioner however, filed a suit on accoutn of the fact that the same was getting time barred and also filed the present writ petiton on the 2nd July, 1966, as the writ petition which was originally filed merely sought a declaration, that Section 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure was unconstitutional, and a direction that the Central Government may be compelled to grant the permission sought for if the provision was held to be valid. Since, even before the filing of the writ petition, the Central Government had refused permission and the petitioner had not known about it, he filed a petition to amend the writ petition seeking to add averments concerning the refusal of permission to sue the present Ruler.

(3.) The order of refusal to give permission to the petitioner to sue the present Ruler of Datia, which did not contain any reason, was sought to be supported in the return filed by the Union of India on the groudn that the Government had an absolute power to grant or withhold consent to sue the present Ruler (of a former Indian State) in a Court of law and that the same was not justiciable. Regarding the contention that Section 87-B of the Code of Civil Procedure offends Articles 14, 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution of India, it is seen from the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohanlal Jain v. Sawai Man Singhji,that S. 87-B was held not to offend Art. 14 of the Constitution. In a later case reported in Narottam Kishore Deb Verman v. Union of India,His Lordship the Chief Justice Gajendragadkar speaking for the Supreme Court referred to Mohan Lal Jain,as having correctly repelled the challenge against the said section under Article 14 and did not allow the same contention to be raised once again. The further attack made on the validity of Section 87-B as contravening Art 19(1)(f) of the Constitution was also considered and the constitutionality of Section 87-B was upheld. In view of these decisions, Shri Goyal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, did not seek to urge that Section 87 of the Code of Civil Procedure was invalid as offending Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. He, however, urged that the said provisions offended Article 31 of the Constitution. Article 31(1) only provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. Section 87-B does not have the effect, plainly, of depriving any person of his property. Hence the reference to Article 31(1) is inappropriate.