RAJA LALITKUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari to quash an application dated 4 September 1958 which the Collector of Raigarh (respondent 3) made to the District Judge, Raigarh (respondent 4), under Section 5(1)(c) of the Central Provinces Court of Wards Act, 1899 (hereinafter called the Act), and also the two orders passed in pursuance of that application by the District Judge, Raigarh, on 25 June 1959 and 16 February 1960. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus or prohibition to restrain the respondents from giving effect to the aforesaid orders for the purpose of assuming superintendence of the estate.

(2.) The petitioner was the Ruler of the erstwhile princely State of Raigarh before it was ceded to the Union of India on 1 January 1948. Under the covenant of merger, his privy purse was fixed at Rs. 1,72,000/- free of taxes and he was declared to be entitled to his personal privileges as well as to the full ownership, use and enjoyment of his private property. On 4 September 1958, the Collector of Raigarh made to the District Judge, Raigarh, an application under Section 5 (1)(c) of the Act for a declaration that the petitioner was unfitted to manage or incapable of managing his own property owing to his having entered upon a course of wasteful extravagance which was likely to dissipate his property. In support of that application, it was alleged inter alia that he had sold away for inadequate price all but 137 acres of his lands, disposed, of for small amounts his bungalow at Raipur and other buildings, jewellery, cars, guns, pistols and other moveables and also incurred heavy debts. The petitioner resisted the application on several grounds. After due enquiry, the District Judge held on 25 June 1959 that the petitioner was a landholder within the meaning of the Act and declared on 16 February 1960 that he was unfitted to manage or incapable of managing his property because of his wasteful extravagance which was likely to dissipate his property.

(3.) The Act was in force before the commencement of the Constitution. It was also continued in force under Clause (1) of Article 372 of the Constitution. Although the Act was covered by Entry 22 of List II of the Seventh Schedule it was subject to the provisions of Entry 34 of List I of that Schedule providing for "Court of Wards for the estates of Rulers of Indian States". Since the provisions of the Act applied to Rulers and non-Rulers alike,, the President, acting under Clause (2) of! Article 372, modified it by the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950, by introducing Section 41 in the Act which reads as follows: "The powers and functions conferred on the State Government by or under this Act shall, in relation to the estates of Rulers of Indian States, be the powers and functions of the Central Government." We would therefore assume the Act to be valid except in so far and it has been specifically challenged before us.