LEKHRAJ SATHRAMDAS LALVANI Vs. MATHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise from the order by a learned Judge, whereby he has vacated two orders, Ext P13 & P16, which had terminated the services of the writ petitioner as the Manager of two evacuee business, and has directed the petitioners being put back in possession. The respondents to the petition have appealed against the mandamus so granted. The learned Judge has not issued any writ restraining the aforesaid respondents from selling the business by public auction, and not to do anything in violation of the petitioners right under the Central Governments order, Ext. P5. The writ petitioner has, therefore appealed against the refusal to issue such a writ. Connected with the aforesaid two appeals, is the application for contempt on the ground of the respondents to the writ petition failing to comply with the mandamus issued by the learned Judge. It follows that the question arising for consideration in the aforesaid consolidated cases is whether the writ of mandamus has been rightly issued or properly withheld.

(2.) The facts of the case are not complicated and can be briefly narrated. The proprietors of two firms, Adam Hajee Peer Mohamed Essak and Hajee Bbrahim Kassem Cochinwala had, in or about the year 1947, migrated to Pakistan, and both the business, therefore, became vested in the Custodian of the Evacuee Properties for the State of Madras, under S.8 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as the 1950 Act. The writ petitioner, L.S. Lalvani, who is a refugee from Pakistan, and avers to have, under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950, registered his claim as a displaced person; had in February 1952 applied to the Custodian for being allotted the two business, as Kozhikode then formed part of Madras State and the two business were situated in Kozhikode. On March 6, 1952, the prayer was allowed by the Custodian, who thereby approved the proposal of the Deputy Custodian about the management of the firms being allotted to the writ petitioner. The petitioner was asked to furnish security of Rs. 20,000/- which he did; and on March 21, 1952, took possession as the Manager. Thereafter, the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property addressed a communication on October 27, 1952, asking whether the writ petitioner would accept the allotment of the aforesaid business concerns; but nothing further appears to have been done in that year, nor during the next year. On October 9, 1954, the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, was passed, which will hereinafter be referred to as the 1954 Act. Also no steps were taken during 1955 about the two concerns being allotted to the writ petitioner; but on April 11, 1956, the proposals for the sale of the aforesaid evacuee properties by public auction appeared in The Hindu. It is petitioners case that he under the 1954 Act applied to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for orders stopping the sale of the two concerns & that the Central Government by proceedings dated April 24, 1956, stopped the sale, and ordered their allotment to the writ petitioner on terms and conditions to be communicated later This order is marked Ext. P-5, and its relevant part reads as follows:-

(3.) The aforesaid judgment, therefore, rests on the short ground of there being no order under the 1954 Act by the Chief Settlement Commissioner for the sale of the properties as directed by R.101 of the Rules framed under the 1954 Act. Thereafter the writ petitioner was given notice of the tour programme of the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, Southern States, who reached Kozhikode on December 12, 1959; and on December 18, 1959, received an order, Ext. P13. The relevant extract of the order is as follows:-