MUHAMMAD HANIF Vs. CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioners, Muhammad Hanif and others, have obtained a rule from the High Court calling upon the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of certiorari should not be issued to quash the proceedings taken by the Custodian of Evacuee Property on the 4th of April, 1955, under Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, ,1950, as subsequently amended. Cause has been shown by the learned Government Advocate on behalf of the State of Bihar and the Custodian of Evacuee Property.

(2.) The petitioners are residents of Calcutta, where they carry on business. They hold 600 shares out of 1500 shares in Sugauli Sugar Works, Ltd., which is a private limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act. On the 24th of January, 1954, a proceeding was started by the Assistant Custodian under Section 7 of Act 31 of 1950 against the petitioners, asking them to show cause why their shares in the Company should not be declared as evacuee property. The proceedings were subsequently transferred to the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property; Motihari, and on the 26th of February, 1954, the Deputy Custodian held that the petitioners were not evacuees and dropped the proceedings. On the 8th of October, 1954, Act 42 of 1954 came into force. Under Section 4 of this Act a new Section 7-A was inserted in Act 31 of 1950. The effect of the section was that no property was to be declared evacuee property on or after the 7th of May, 1954, except under Certain circumstances. On the 4th of April, 1955, the Custodian, Evacuee Property, issued a fresh notice upon the petitioners. This notice is annexure E to the application and it is necessary to quote it in full:

(3.) The main argument put forward on behalf of the petitioners is that the Custodian had no jurisdiction to declare the shares of the petitioners as evacuee property as the registered office of the Company was at Calcutta and the Administration of Evacuee Property Act did not extend to West Bengal. In this connection Mr. P.R. Das, Counsel for the petitioners, referred to Clause 2 of the Memorandum of Association, which is Annexure A. Clause 2 states :