Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Writ No. 72-D of 1952.

Attorney(S)

Veda Vyasa and S.K Kapur,
C.K Daphtry, Solicitor-General, Porus A. Mehta, Bishambar Dayal, Government Pleader and Kali Sharan,

Judges

Bhandari, C.J
Falshaw, J.

Acts

SECTION 16 ADMINISTRATION OF EVACUEE PROPERTY ACT 1950
Section 16 violates the provisions of Article 14,
provisions of Article 32 of the Constitution
ARTICLE 226 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The petition challenges the validity of Section 16 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution. The factual matrix described in the opinion is as follows:

One Shri Mohamad Din Chhatriwala, alleged to have migrated to Pakistan during the 1947 communal disturbances, owned considerable properties in Delhi.
On 14-9-1949 his properties were notified as evacuee property under the Administration of Evacuee Property (Chief Commissioners Provinces) Ordinance, 1949. He claimed the properties but his claim was dismissed by the Authorised Deputy Custodian on 4-4-1950.
The Deputy Custodian's order was subsequently upheld by the Custodian General and the High Court.
On 8-1-1951 the Central Government issued a certificate under Section 16 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, restoring the properties to Chhatriwala. The Custodian complied and the Custodian General confirmed that compliance.
The petitioner, a displaced person from West Pakistan, filed this petition under Article 226 challenging the validity of Section 16 and seeking relief.
The Court framed as a primary procedural question whether the petitioner is a "person aggrieved" entitled to invoke judicial review of the statute.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the petitioner is a "person aggrieved" and therefore has standing to challenge the validity of Section 16 under Article 226.
Whether Section 16 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, is unconstitutional (specifically whether it violates Article 14), as alleged by the petitioner.
Whether Article 226 of the Constitution, by its wider language (including "for any other purpose"), permits a stranger to challenge the validity of a statutory enactment even where he is not directly aggrieved.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's (Petitioner's) Arguments

Petitioner's counsel (Mr. Ved Vyasa) submitted that the petitioner is entitled to seek the Court's intervention because Section 16 is calculated to operate to his disadvantage: evacuee property restored under Section 16 would reduce the pool of property available to compensate displaced persons from Pakistan, thereby diminishing the petitioner's prospective compensation.
It was further argued that Section 16 violates Article 14 because it accords more favourable treatment to certain evacuees (those whose property is restored) than to others, thereby creating an impermissible inequality.
The petitioner also relied on the broader language of Article 226 (including the phrase "for any other purpose") to contend that he may seek a writ to challenge the validity of a statute even though he is not invoking Article 32; he placed reliance on authorities concerning the Court's power to quash proceedings and decisions (including cases discussing certiorari and the role of a "stranger" in pointing out jurisdictional usurpation).

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments in favour of the respondents or of the respondent's detailed submissions opposing the petitioner's contentions.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Massachusetts v. Mellon, (1922) 262 US 447	The proposition that a person challenging a statute must show direct injury and cannot sue merely as one suffering in common with the public.	Used to support the requirement that the petitioner must be a person aggrieved — the Court relied on this authority to deny standing where only a general or indirect interest exists.
Clark v. Kansas City, (1899) 176 US 114	A court will not entertain objections to a statute by a party whose rights are not affected.	Cited as an authority reinforcing the standing requirement that the petitioner must have rights prejudicially affected to challenge validity.
Com. v. Wright, 79 KY 22	Illustration that one not prejudiced (e.g., a white man) may not object to statute excluding another class (e.g., negros) from a jury.	Presented as an illustrative example to show that lack of personal prejudice precludes challenging a statute.
Charanjit Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41 (at p. 52)	A shareholder cannot complain of legislation affecting a company except insofar as it infringes his own rights.	Relied upon to demonstrate limits on who may challenge a statute — emphasising that one must show an infringement of personal rights.
Fairchild v. Hughes, (1921) 258 US 126	Example where a voter's attempt to enjoin ratification failed; interest held too remote to justify contesting an enactment.	Used to illustrate that remote or conjectural interests do not confer standing to challenge legislation.
Red River Valley National Bank v. Graig, (1901) 181 US 548	One who does not belong to the class that might be injured cannot raise the question of a statute's invalidity.	Cited among authorities establishing that only those within the affected class have standing to challenge the law.
Darnell v. Indiana, (1912) 226 US 390	Similar principle on standing: non-members of the affected class lack locus to challenge.	Used to reinforce the standing doctrine relied upon by the Court.
Standard Stock Food Company v. Wright, (1911) 225 US 540	Principle that one outside an affected class cannot contest the validity of a statute affecting another class.	Cited as an additional authority supporting refusal to entertain challenges by strangers to the affected class.
Oliver Iron Min. Co. v. Lord, (1922) 268 US 172 (at p. 180)	Same standing principle: remote interest insufficient to challenge statute.	Relied upon to show reluctance of courts to invalidate legislation on the basis of remote or conjectural interests.
Queen v. Justices of Surrey, (1870) 5 QB 466	Observation that a "stranger" may point out jurisdictional usurpation by an inferior court, but such intervention is discretionary and not an entitlement "ex debito justitiae".	Quoted by the petitioner, but the Court held the authority inapplicable because those observations arose in the context of certiorari (an inferior court record) — not in a direct challenge to statutory validity by a stranger.
The King v. The Groom, (1901) 2 KB 157	Authority concerning the Court's discretionary power in certiorari proceedings and the role of a stranger in pointing out jurisdictional excess.	Referenced by petitioner; Court found it inapposite to a challenge under Article 226 where no inferior court matter was before the Court.
King v. Richmond Confirming Authority, (1921) 1 KB 248	Similar context regarding certiorari and discretionary intervention by strangers.	Cited by petitioner but the Court held the line of authorities did not assist because they concerned certiorari and were not cases of a stranger challenging a statute's validity.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis proceeded in the following logical steps, strictly following the material in the opinion:

Preliminary disposition: The petition must be dismissed on the short ground that the petitioner has sustained no damage which would entitle him to seek issuance of a writ under Article 226.
Factual grounding: The Court recited the background concerning Chhatriwala's alleged migration, the declaration of his properties as evacuee property, the dismissal of his claim by the Deputy Custodian and higher authorities, and the Central Government's certificate under Section 16 restoring the properties to Chhatriwala, which was complied with by the Custodian and confirmed by the Custodian General.
Standing as threshold question: The Court identified the first point for decision as whether the petitioner can be said to be a "person aggrieved," emphasizing that constitutional challenges to statutes can be mounted only by those whose rights have been or are about to be prejudicially affected by enforcement of the statute. To elaborate this principle, the Court cited established authorities (including Massachusetts v. Mellon and Clark v. Kansas City) explaining that courts will not entertain generalized grievances.
Assessment of petitioner's pleaded interest: The petitioner contended that restoration of evacuee property under Section 16 would shrink the compensation pool (created later by the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954) and thus reduce the amount available to displaced persons such as himself; and that Section 16 discriminates in violation of Article 14 by favouring some evacuees over others.
Rebuttal on the legal and factual basis of petitioner's claim:
- The Court reviewed the legislative scheme governing evacuee property and observed that custodians were appointed to safeguard evacuee property, deal with its management, recovery of dues, payment of debts, leases, and litigation in the evacuee's name, with restrictions on alienation except with provincial authority.
- The Court noted that the compensation pool envisaged by the 1954 Act was a later legislative measure — its contents, size and composition were not determinate and the Government retained discretion whether to acquire particular evacuee property for the pool. Individuals had no entitlement to a specific share of the pool beyond such proportion as rules might allow in respect of verified claims.
- Given this structure, the Court found that any effect on the petitioner's prospective compensation was too remote and conjectural to constitute a direct injury. The petitioner had no proprietary right in evacuee property; if any right existed it was very remote.
- The Court invoked the policy of judicial restraint: courts are reluctant to invalidate legislation where the petitioner's rights are remote; it relied on authorities exemplifying refusal to entertain challenges based on remote or minute interests (e.g., Fairchild v. Hughes and the 1922 Massachusetts decision).
On the petitioner's reliance on Article 226 and certiorari authorities: The petitioner argued Article 226's language ("for any other purpose") empowers broader challenges to statutes and relied on cases concerning certiorari and the role of strangers.
- The Court explained that the authorities cited (Queen v. Justices of Surrey and similar cases) arose in the context of certiorari, which is a remedy directed at inferior courts and officials to transmit records to a superior court; those observations relate to discretionary intervention by strangers in jurisdictional usurpation and not to a stranger's right to challenge statutory validity under Article 226.
- Because there was no inferior court matter pending and no application for removal of proceedings to this Court, those authorities were not a guide to the present petition.
Conclusion of analysis: Given that the petitioner was neither a member of the class favoured nor of the class denied favour and had only a remote or conjectural interest, he lacked the requisite standing to challenge Section 16. Accordingly, the petition could not be entertained and should be dismissed.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The petition is DISMISSED.

Implications:

The immediate consequence is that the petitioner is denied the relief sought under Article 226; the Court did not adjudicate the substantive constitutionality of Section 16 on its merits because the petitioner's lack of standing precluded consideration of that question.
The decision rests on standing and the remoteness of the petitioner's interest; the Court emphasized judicial restraint and existing precedents limiting litigation to persons directly affected by a statute's operation.
The opinion does not announce or establish any novel legal principle beyond applying established standing doctrine; it does not purport to set a new precedent on the substantive validity of Section 16.

Judgment delivered by Falshaw, J., who ordered the petition dismissed for the reasons set out above.

Show full summary ...

In The Matter Of Ishar Singh Grover v. Union Of India

1. This petition under Article . 226 of the Constitution must DO dismissed on the short ground that the petitioner has sustained no damage which would entitle him to apply for the issuance of a writ.

2. One Shri Mohamad Din Chhatriwala, who owned considerable properties in Delhi, is alleged to have migrated to Pakistan during the communal disturbances which broke out in the year 1947. On 14-9-1949 the properties belonging to him were notified as evacuee property under the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property (Chief Commissioners Provinces) Ordinance, 1949. He preferred a claim to the Custodian on the ground that the properties were not evacuee properties but this claim was dismissed by the Authorised Deputy Custodian on 4-4-1950. The order of the Deputy Custodian was later upheld both by the Custodian General and the High Court. On 8-1-1951 the Central Government issued a certificate under Section 16 Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, stating that the properties belonging to Chhatriwala which had vested in the Custodian be restored to him. The Custodian has complied with the order of the Central Government and the Custodian's order has been confirmed by the Custodian General.

3. The petitioner, who is a displaced person from West Pakistan, has presented this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has challenged the validity of Section 16 of the Act of 1950.

4. The first point for decision in the present case is whether the petitioner can be said to be a person aggrieved, for the validity of a statute can be impugned only by a person whose rights have been or are about to be prejudicially affected by the application or enforcement of the statute. It has long been the policy of the law that the judiciary and the Legislature should, if possible, work in harmony with each other and in order to secure this end, the Courts have formulated certain rules and imposed certain restrictions on their own powers. The first and perhaps the most important rule is that one who invokes the power of the Court to declare an Act of the Legislature to be unconstitutional, must be able to show, not only that the statute is invalid but that he has sustained, or is in immediate danger of sustaining, some direct injury as the result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally ('Massachusetts v. Mellon', (1922) 262 US 447 (A)). Thus a Court will not listen to an objection made to the constitutionality of an Act by a party whose rights it does not affect and who has, therefore, no interest in defeating it ('Clark v. Kansas City', (1899) 176 US 114 (B)). For example, where a law excludes negros from a grand jury, a white man may not object to such exclusion, since he is not prejudiced thereby (Com v. Wright 79 KY 22 (C)). Nor is it open to an individual share-holder to complain of an Act which affects the fundamental rights of the Company except to the extent that it constitutes an infraction of his own rights as well ('Charanjit Lal v. Union of India', AIR 1951 SC 41 at p. 52 (D)).

5. Mr. Ved Vyasa, who appears for the petitioner, has placed two submissions before us. It is contended in the first place that his client has a right to seek the intervention of this Court as the provisions of section 16 are calculated to operate to his disadvantage. It is argued that ever since the partition of the country in the year 1947 the Gov- eminent of India have evinced a desire to compensate displaced persons from Pakistan out of the property left by Muslims in India, that all evacuee property in India is to constitute a compensation pool out of which displaced persons are to be compensated and that if any property belonging to an evacuee is restored to him under the provisions of section 16, the size of the pool is likely to be reduced and the amount of compensation payable to each person is likely to be smaller. In any case, it is argued, Section 16 violates the provisions of Article 14, inasmuch as it accords a more favourable treatment to certain evacuees than it accords to others.

6. I regret I am unable to endorse the propositions which have been propounded on behalf of the petitioner. It is true that Government have assumed possession and control of all evacuee property situate in India but the preambles to the various Acts which have been enacted in this behalf make it quite clear that this was done with the object of safeguarding the property belonging to persons who had migrated to Pakistan and who were not in a position to look after it themselves. Every Custodian was empowered to carry on the business of the evacuee to take action for the recovery of monies due to the evacuee and for payment of debts due from the evacuee, to make contracts in the name of the evacuee and to institute, defend or continue any legal proceedings on behalf of the evacuee. He was at liberty to grant or cancel leases of evacuee property but was expressly forbidden from selling any immovable property or any shop or business establishment or any undertaking belonging to an evacuee except under orders of the Provincial Government. It was not till the year 1954 that the Central Legislature enacted "The Displaced Persons (Compensation and Re-labilitation) Act, 1954", a measure which constituted for the first time a compensation pool which was to consist of evacuee property acquired by it on payment of compensation, of certain cash balances lying with the custodians of certain contributions made by the Central Government, and of such other assets as were to be prescribed by rules made under the Act. Government reserved to themselves full power to acquire or not to acquire any evacuee property for the purpose of this pool. The size and capacity of this pool were completely unknown and could be varied from rime to time. No particular person was entitled to a particular share in the pool; he was entitled to receive only such proportion of his verified claim as was admissible to him under the rules framed by Government. He was not concerned with the size, of the pool or with what was taken out of it or what was put into it.

Government alone were under an obligation to see that the size of the pool was sufficiently large to enable them to meet their obligations. In these circumstances, it is idle to contend that the rights of the petitioner have been prejudicially affected by reason only of the fact that some evacuee property has been released under the provisions of section 16. The petitioner has, in my opinion, no right whatsoever in evacuee property, and if he has any such right, the right is very remote. Courts are extremely reluctant to invalidate legislation when the petitioner's right is considered to be remote.

Thus in-- 'Fairchild v. Hughes', (1921) 258 US 126 (E) a voter sought unsuccessfully to enjoin the Secretary of State from proclaiming ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, and in (1922) 262 US 447 (A) the interest of a tax-payer of the United States in the funds of the federal treasury was held too minute and conjectural to justify him in contesting an Act of Congress authorising distribution of public funds. Moreover, the petitioner is neither a member of the class to which preferential treatment has been accorded nor a member of the class to which such treatment has been denied.

It seems to me, therefore, that it is not open to him to come forward and plead the cause in a case in which he has no direct interest. One who does not belong to the class that might be injured by a statute, cannot raise the question of its invalidity -- 'Red River Valley National Bank v. Graig', (1901) 181 US 548 (F); -- 'Darnell v. Indiana', (1912) 226 US 390 (G); -- 'Standard Stock Food Company v. Wright', (1911) 225 US 540 (H) and -- 'Oliver Iron Min. Co. v. Lord', (1922) 268 US 172 at p. 180 (I).

7. Again, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he has come to this Court not under the provisions of Article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of fundamental right but under the provisions of Art, 226 for the issuance of an appropriate writ. According to him, the language of Article 226 is much wider than that of Article 32, for the expression "for any other purpose"

appearing at the end of the Article empowers a person to ask for a writ not only for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III but also for challenging the validity of a statutory enactment. ' In any case, it is contended, a writ can be granted 'ex debito justitiae' to quash proceedings which the Court has power to quash. Our attention has been invited to -- 'Queen v. Justices of Surrey', (1870) 5 QB 466 (J); -- The King v. The Groom', (1901) 2 KB 157 (K) and -- 'King v. Richmond Confirming Authority', (1921) 1 KB 248 (L). In the first of these cases the learned Judges observed as follows:

"I entirely concur in the proposition that, although the Court will listen to a person who is a stranger, and who interferes to point out that some other Court has exceeded its jurisdiction, whereby some wrong or grievance has been sustained, yet that is not 'ex debito justitiae', but a matter upon which the Court may properly exercise its discretion, as distinguished from the case of a party aggrieved, who is entitled to relief 'ex debito justitiae', if he suffers from the usurpation of jurisdiction by another Court"

8. These authorities can be of no help to the petitioner. In the first place, these observations were made in, connection with an application for the issue of a writ of 'certiorari'. This writ issues out of a superior Court and is directed to the Judge or other office of an inferior Court requiring him to transmit to the Superior Court the record of the proceeding pending in the inferior Court. These observations cannot be regarded as a guide in the present case, for no matter is pending in an inferior Court, and no application has been made for the removal of that matter to this Court. In none of the three cases mentioned above was the validity of an Act challenged by a stranger.

9. For these reasons I am of the opinion that the petition ought to be dismissed. I would order accordingly.

Falshaw, J.

In The Matter Of Ishar Singh Grover v. Union Of India

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's (Petitioner's) Arguments

Respondent's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

In The Matter Of Ishar Singh Grover v. Union Of India

Comments