CHAKRAVARTI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, Respdt 5 & 6 were displaced persons from Pakistan. They were occupying property which was evacuee (Saleable). Petitioners asked for allotment of the same but the department ordered its sale by auction. Respondent 6 filed Writ against order of sale. It was dismissed on 27.4.65. In sale notice property was wrongly described as at 'Faizganj instead of at Faiz Road. Auction took place on 12.9.66. Bid of Respdt. 6 was highest. On 22.8.67, Asst. Settlement Commissioner, Mr. S.P. Sud, accepted objections that there was material irregularity in sale and substantial injury took place and ordered re-auction to begin from the bid of objector who should deposit 20% of the bid as security. The security was not deposited and sale did not take place. Petitioner 1 & 2 Respdt 5 filed writag ainst auction. In reply affidavit. Chief Settlement Commissioner had stated that Mr. S.P. Sud had set aside the sale on 22.8.67. Respdt. 6 also stated this claiming that the Writ had become infructuous. During Court proceedings, Government had offered to transfer property jointly to petitioners and Respdt 5 & 6. On 16-3-70, petition was dismissed as having become infructuous. Sh. S.P. Sud then on 4.6.70 gave final shape to his order of 22-8-67 and rejected bid of respdt. 6 made in 1966. Respdt. 6 appealed against this claiming that, amongst other grounds. Sh. S.P. Sud was not authorised to accept or reject the bids. Appeal was rejected by Sh. Moga, Settlement Commissioner on 7-6-71. Respdt. 6 then filed revision to Government U/S 33 of Displaced Persons (C & R) Act 1954 which was accepted on 17-11-71, not on the ground that Sh. S.P. Sud was not authorised but that Sh. Moga had not found that objector had suffered any substantial injury. Sale offer made in Court was followed by letter dt. 9/11-12-70 offering transfer for Rs 1,10,000.00. It was accepted on 17-12-70. Price was raised to Rs. 1,20,000.00 on 3.5.71. It was also accepted. In revision order dt. 17.11.71, Sh. Pathak, Joint Secretary to Govt. did not advert to the facts of offer and acceptance. Petitioners filed writ against this order of 17.11.71. After giving these facts in detail, judgement para 12 onwards is :

(2.) . Points that arise are ;-

(3.) Point 1. The question concerning the petitioners' locus standi to challenge the impugned order passed by the (Government under Section 33 of the Act is one which falls for decision even at the outset. If the petitioners do not have locus standi there will hardly be any necessity to enter into the merits of the writ petition. Article 226 of the Constitution confers power on the High Courts, notwithstanding power given to the Supreme Court under Article 32, to issue directions, orders or writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus' prohibition, quo warrants and certiorari or any other order or direction for enforcement of any of rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose.