M C RAHBAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principal question that arises for decision in this writ petitin under Articles 228 and 227 of the Constitution is whether rule 104 of the Rules framed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation' Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act'), is ultra virus section 24 of the Act.

(2.) . The petitioner is a partnership firm. The partners of that firm are evacuees horn an area, which now forms a part of West Pakistan. Plot No. l/5. Industrial Area, Kirtinagar, New Delhi, was allotted to the petitioner by the Rehabilitation Department in March. 1952. The petitioner's case is that though it accepted the offer of the Government to purchase the plot on the terms stipulated by the Rehabilitation Department, the Department has now sold the same by public auction on June 19, 1963, and purchased by the 4th respondent. The petitioner's objection to the sale of that property has been overruled by the Managing Officer. The petitioner's appeal against that order to the Assistant Settlement Commissioner has been dismissed, its revision petition to the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner has also been dismissed and lastly, its application under section 33 of the Act has also been dismissed by the Central Government. Hence this petition.

(3.) In this case, I am principally concerned with the question, whether the order of the 2nd respondent made in No. 85/D/9-R/347, dated March 30, 1964, suffers from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. As mentioned earlier, the petitioner is a partnership firm. As against the order of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the 2nd respendent on August 2, 1963. That revision petition was signed by Mr. W.C. Rahbar, one of the partners of the firm. Curiously enough, the ..lid respondent dismissed that revision petition on the sole ground that the petition in question could not be considered as having been filed by the partnership-concern as its signatory Mr. Rahbar. was only only of the partners. But instead of challenging that der by means of an application under section 33 of the Act, the petitioner firm filed another revision petition on November 29, 1963, which petition was signed by both the partners. That petition was dismissed missed as having been barred by time under rule 104of the Rules framed under the Act. The contention of the petitioner that that rule is ultra vires section 24 of the Act, was overruled by the 2nd respondent. As seen earlier,the Central Government refused to interfere with the order of the 2nd respondent made on March 30, 1964.