S. HALEEMUDDIN RAHAT MALSEY Vs. U.P. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance.

(2.) THE brief facts are these. The plaintiff -appellant was arrested on 6 -9 -1956 under Section 147/323 I.P.C. His bail application was allowed on 27 -11 -56 but as soon as he was released on 28 -11 -1956 he was again arrested at the jail gate and was served with an order under the Preventive Detention Act, 1(950. The plaintiff remained a security prisoner from 28 -11 -1956 to 10 -2 -1957. This detention substantially affected the means of his dependents and the defendant -respondent No. 1 State of Uttar Pradesh, was bound to pay allowance for the maintenance of such dependents under Rule 152 of the Security Prisoners' Rules, 1950. The plaintiff -appellant made an application to the District Magistrate, Moradabad, the defendant -respondent No. 2 on 1 -12 -1956 praying for maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 15/ - per day to be paid to his wife. The District Magistrate informed the plaintiff that an enquiry was being made in regard to his application end the result of the same would be forwarded to the State Government Such an enquiry was made and its result was forwarded to the Government but the plaintiff did not hear from the Government till 23rd September, 19557. The latter informed the plaintiff -appellant that hie application had been rejected by an order dated 23rd March, 1967. The said order of the State Government was said to be arbitrary and illegal and, therefore, the plaintiff instituted a suit praying for a decree for Rs. 1500/ -against the defendants. The sum of Rs. 1500/ - comprised of Rs. 1110/ - as maintenance allowance from 28 -11 -1956 to 10 -2 -1957 @ Rs. 15/ - per day and Rs. 390/ - as damages by way of interest for withholding the payment within the period. The suit was contested by the defendants and various pleas were taken in defence. The civil court's jurisdiction to go into the plaintiff's grievance was questioned. It was alleged that due enquiry was held in the plaintiff's application and that it was found that the plaintiff was not entitled to any maintenance allowance. The suit was also contended to be barred by Section 15 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1960, The trial court framed the necessary issues and dismissed the suit. In the lower appellate court the decree of the trial court was maintained. Now, the plaintiff has come up in the instant second appeal and in support thereof I have heard Shri S.S. Chandwaria, learned Counsel for the plaintiff -appellant. The learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions in opposition. The relevant rule whose interpretation is called for is as follows:

(3.) CHANDRESHWARI Pd. v. State of Bihar : AIR1956Pat104 where it is laid down as under: