MESSRS. J.B. MANGHARAM & CO., HYDERABAD Vs. SHRI PARSHOTAM SARUP, DEPUTY CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 223, 227 and 14 of the Constitution in which the facts are somewhat lengthy and may be first stated.

(2.) THE petitioner -firm used to manufacture biscuits and make confectionary at Sukkar Sind under the name and style of Messrs. J.B. Mangharam & Company. After the partition of the country, the factories of the firm at Sukkar were allotted to one Mohammad Yakub, who owned a biscuit factory in Hyderabad known as the Rose Biscuit Factory alongwith his wife Zaib -un -nisa. On 9th February 1950 the Custodian of Evacuee Property, Hyderabad, entered into an agreement (Annexure 'A') entitled "Agreement to allot Rose Biscuit Factory" with the petitioner -firm. Under Clause 5 of that agreement the allottees were bound to purchase all stocks, stores and other similar materials together with motor -cars, trucks, and hand -carts, if any, at the valuation agreed between the parties. Clause 2 was as follows: -

(3.) ON 10th February 1960 the Managing Officer issued another show -cause notice under section 19 of the Act for cancellation of the allotment with effect from 13th February 1960 on the ground that the period of two years, which had been granted by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, was about to expire. The petitioner -firm filed a writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad (No. 172 of 1960) challenging the legality and validity, of the aforesaid notice. This petition was admitted on 11th March 1960 and an interim stay order was granted. While the aforesaid stay order was operative the Managing Officer, Hyderabad, made an order on 25th August 1960 which is stated to have been received by the petitioner firm on the morning of 27th August 1960 cancelling the show -cause notice issued on 10th February 1960 but on the evening of 27th August 1960 he made another order recalling his previous order dated 25th August 1960 and reviving his show cause notice dated 10th February 1960. The petitioner -firm then filed another writ petition (No. 669 of 1960) in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which was duly admitted. On 28th September 1960 the Managing Officer issued yet another show cause notice to the petitioner -firm fixing 14th October 1960 as the date for appearance. The petitioner -firm then filed a third writ petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh (No. 720 of 1960). The petitioner -firm moved the Managing Officer for adjournment but on 14th October 1960 the said officer made an order cancelling the allotment. This, according to the petitioner -firm, was done behind its back. On 15th October 1960 the Managing Officer is stated to have pasted another show -cause notice on the premises of the petitioner -firm and this was followed by the taking of the possession of the factory which according to the petitioner -firm was done forcibly. The factory was sealed with the help of the police. The petitioner -firm then filed the fourth writ petition (No. 720 of 1960) in the Andhra Pradesh High Court on 17th October 1960. The last two writ petitions, namely, 720 of 1960 and 726 of 1960 were disposed of by the High Court by one judgment on 9th January 1961. The former was dismissed but the latter was allowed and a direction was issued to restore the petitioner -firm to possession. On 17th January 1961 the Managing Officer issued another show -cause -notice under section 19(2) of the Act requiring the petitioner -firm to give vacant possession of the factory and the premises. The petitioner -firm had filed an appeal in the mean -time to the Regional Settlement Commissioner under section 22 of the Act against the notice dated 17th January 1961. An appeal was also preferred to the same authority against an order of the Managing Officer -dated 14th October 1960. These appeals were dismissed by the Regional Settlement Commissioner on 20th March 1961 (Annexure 'G'). A revision was preferred under section 24 of the Act which was admitted by the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner and an interim stay order was given by him. It is, however, stated in the petition that in the meantime the Managing Officer soon after the dismissal of the appeals by the Regional Settlement Commissioner passed an order on 21st March 1961 directing the petitioner firm to surrender possession within seven days from 21st March 1961. A second revision petition had consequently to be preferred to the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner on 19th April 1961 and another interim stay, order was obtained. That revision petition was dismissed by the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner on 6th May 1961. He granted three months' time to the petitioner -firm for vacating the factory and removing the machinery installed by it. The petitioner -firm came up to this Court with the present petition in July 1961.