1. This is an application by Dungardas and another under Article 226 of the Constitution against the Custodian Evacuee Property, Rajasthan, and the Deputy Custodian Evacuee Property, Ganganagar.
2. Dungardas's case briefly was that certain proceedings were taken against him by the Additional Custodian, Ganganagar, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8000/- said to have been deposited with him by one Moulabux who later became an evacuee. These proceedings were dropped in August, 1949.
Thereafter, fresh proceedings in the same master were started by the Deputy Custodian, Evacuee Property Ganganagar in October, 1952. Dungardas objected to fresh proceedings being taken on the ground that the matter had already been adjudicated upon in 1949.
This objection was overruled, and Dungardas was directed to deposit the amount along with 6% interest. He preferred an appeal to the Custodian, which was dismissed.
Thereafter, he went in revision to the Custodian General, New Delhi, and the revision was dismissed on 7-1-1955. The other applicant Sohan-singh has been joined because during the proceedings in the Evacuee Department he became surety for the payment of the amount by Dungardas. The present application was filed in February, 1955, after the Custodian General had rejected the revision of the applicant.
3. A preliminary objection has been raised that this Court has no jurisdiction to pass any order against the Custodian General, New Delhi, and as the order of the Deputy Custodian, Ganganagar, has been upheld and confirmed by the Custodian General in revision, the applicant cannot ask this Court to issue a writ to the Deputy Custodian Ganganagar as that would not be of any help to the applicant.
4. A similar case came before this Court in 'Barkat All v. Custodian-General of Evacuee Property', 1954 Raj 214 (AIR V 41) (A). In that case, it was held by the Bench, to which one of us was a party, that where the Custodian General merely dismissed the revision, 'and the order of the Authority in Rajasthan stood as it was, the order, which would really be in dispute in this court would be the order of the Authority in Rajasthan, and not the order of the Custodian General.
It was also held that it would be sufficient in those circumstances to issue a writ to the Authority 'in Rajasthan, and that it would not be necessary' to issue any writ to the Custodial] General. The only case that was available as that time was 'Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Rao', 1953 SC 210 (AIR V 40) (B), and in that case the question as to which High Court would have jurisdiction was left open in cases where the Authority claiming exercise of jurisdiction ever a matter at first instance was located in one State, and the Appellate Court was located in another State.
Learned counsel for the opposite parties however submits that since then there have been decisions of other Courts which have taken a view contrary to the decision in 'Barkat Ali's case (A)', and that the Supreme Court has approved of the view taken by the other Courts. Our attention in this connection has been drawn to -- (1) 'Hafiz Mohammad Yusuf v. The Custodian General, Evacuee Properties, New Delhi', 1954 All 433 (AIR V41) (C) (2) 'Azmat Ullah v. The Custodian, Evacuee Property, U. P. Lucknow', 1955 All 435 (AIR V 42) (FB) (D), (3) 'Burhanpur National Textile Workers Union, Burhanpur v. Labour Appellate Tribunal 'of India at Bombay', 1955 Nag 148 ( (S) AIR V 42) (E), (4) 'Joginder Singh Waryam Singh v. Director Rural Rehabilitation, Pepsu', 1955 Pepsu 91 ((S) AIR V 42) (F).
We do not think it ne'cessary to discuss these cases in detail. Suffice it to say that the view taken in these cases is that the order of the Authority which passed it originally is merged in the order of the Appellate or Revisional Court, and if the Appellate or Revisional court is located beyond the territories over which a High Court has jurisdiction, it would not be possible for the High Court to issue a writ in such a case.
5. The matter also came for consideration before the Supreme Court in 'A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar v. M. Venkatachalam Potti', 1956 SC 243 ((S) AIR V 43) (G). The question was raised whether the Travancore-Cochin High Court had jurisdiction to issue a writ under Article 226 in view of the fact that the Investigation Commission, which was said to be directing proceedings through some Officer in Travancore-Cochin, was located at New Delhi. The learned Attorney-General relied on the cases we have cited above, and urged that, in view of these decisions, the Travancore-Cochin High Court had no jurisdiction.
The matter was considered by the Supreme Court, and the following observations were made 'at page 255' with reference to the argument of the learned Attorney General -
'These decisions, however, are clearly not in point for, in each of them, the order passed by the authority within the territories and accordingly within the jurisdiction of the High Court concerned had merged in the order of the superior authority which was located outside the territories and was, therefore, beyond the jurisdiction of that High Court. In that situation, a writ against the inferior authority within the territories could be of no avail to the petitioner concerned and could give him no relief for the order of the superior authority outside the territories would remain outstanding and operative against him.
As, therefore, no writ could be issued against that outside authority and as the orders against the authority within the territories would, in view of the orders of the superior authority, have been infructuous, the High Court concerned had, of necessity, to dismiss the petition.'
'Barkat Ali's case (A)', was unfortunately not cited before the Supreme Court; but the observations, which we have set out above, are, in our opinion, very specific and clear-cut, and, in view of these observations, we have to hold that the view taken in 'Barkat Ali's case (A)', can no longer be sustained.
6. We, therefore, uphold the preliminary objection, and dismiss the application. In view of thecircumstances, we pass no order as to costs.