DULICHAND OMRAOLAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this appeal as urged by Mr. Pal is a substantial question of law of some public importance; as to whether Ordinance 1 of 1969 was not continued by Laws Continuance Enforcement Order, 1971, since it ceased to be a valid piece of legislation.

(2.) In Order to appreciate the contention of Mr. Pal who appears for the Appellant M/S. Dulichand Omraolal, facts in brief may be narrated. The Appellant, a partnership firm, challenged the orders and directions declaring its business and properties as enemy property, and prayed for the surrender of its management and control to the appellant firm before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 121 of 1973, but failed.

(3.) Question arose before the High Court whether the appellant firm is an enemy firm within the meaning of Rule, 161 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965 and its properties vested in the Custodian under Rule 182 of the said Rules. On the out break of war between Pakistan and India in 1965, Emergency under Article 30 of the Constitution of 1962 was declared by the President and Defence of Pakistan Ordinance was promulgated thereunder and under authority of the Ordinance, Defence of Pakistan Rules 1965 were framed. The Governor of the then East Pakistan under delegated authority by order of 20-9-65 made in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 181 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, briefly called the Rules, took over the control and management of the firm along with another firm, and authorised late Sultanuddin Ahmed to carry on the trade and business of the firm. By a subsequent order dated 27-10-65, the Governor terminated the authorisation of late Sultanuddin Ahmed, and authorised the East Pakistan Small Industries Corporation to carry on the trade and business of the said firms. Thereafter the East Pakistan Enemy Property Management Board, in exercise of its delegated power under rule 182(1), by an order dated 5-10-68 vested the firms in the Additional Custodian of Enemy Property and accordingly these firms continued to be managed in pursuance of this order till the appellant and another moved the High Court and obtained the two Rules challenging the order of the respondents' right of taking over control and management of the firms and then vesting them in the Additional Custodian. In the meanwhile, however. Emergency was withdrawn on 16-2-1969 and on the date Ordinance 1 of 1969 Enemy Property (Continuance of Emergency Provision) Ordinance 1969 was promulgated continuing some provisions of the Defence of Pakistan Rules. While the law was so continuing, came the Liberation War and the emergence of Bangladesh as an independent country and the Proclamation of Independence and the Laws Continuance Enforcement Order of 10-4-1971.