226 of the Constitution.
By an order dated January 29, 1955, the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property, Tellicherry, declared that Kunhi Moosa Haji was an evacuee under the provisions of s. 2 d 1 of the Act and the plots in question were evacuee property within the meaning of s. 2 f of the Act.
This revision petition was dismissed by the Custodian General by his order dated April 9, 1956.
This petition was, however, withdrawn by the petitioner on the ground that the Kerala High Court had held in an earlier decision reported in Arthur Import Export Company, Bombay v. Colletor of Customs, Cochin 1 that when an order of an inferior tribunal is carried up in appeal or revision to a superior tribunal outside the companyrts jurisdiction and the superior tribunal passes an order companyfirming, modifying or reversing the order, the High Court cannot issue a writ to an authority outside its territorial jurisdiction.
The petitioner then moved the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, Malabar, for a review of his order under s. 26 2 of the Act.
19 1 f and 31 of the Constitution have been infringed and she is entitled to an appropriate writ or order from this Court for the restoration of the property transferred to her by her husband.
The petitioner stated that her husband had been carrying on the said business since 1936.
This application was also rejected.
March 22.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. DAS, J. This is a writ petition under Art.
She has also companytested on merits the companyrectness of the findings arrived at by the relevant authorities that Kunhi Moosa Haji was an evacuee and the property in question was evacuee property.
On December 7, 1953, Kunhi Moosa Haji transferred in favour of his wife his right.,
The petitioner then moved the High Court of Kerala by means of a writ petition under Art.
Then the petitioner moved the Custodian General of Evacuee Property, New Delhi, in revision against the order of the Deputy Custodian.
32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
The relevant facts lie within a narrow companypass, and the short point for decision is whether in the circumstances of this case the petitioner can companyplain of an infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed to her under Arts.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petition No.
S. Bindra, R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for the respondents.
Thereafter be moved an application under Art.
The petitioners husband Kunhi Moosa Haji, it is alleged, carried on a hotel business in Karachi which is number in Pakistan.
32 of the Constitution.
The petitioners husband did number appear to companytest the numberice, but the petitioner entered appearance through her advocate.
In her petition, the petitioner has companytested the validity of the numberice issued on December 8, 1954, on the ground of numbercompliance with certain rules.
Petition under Art.
This petition also failed.
32 of 1959.
The relevant facts are these.
19 1 f and 31 of the Constitution.
A. Seyid Muhamad, for the petitioner.
On December 8, 1954, about a year after the transfer, a numberice was issued to both the petitioner and her husband to show cause why Kunhi Moosa Haji should number be declared an evacuee and his property as evacuee property under the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, hereinafter called the Act .
From this decision the petitioner unsuccessfully carried an appeal to the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, Malabar, who affirmed the decision of the Assistant Custodian, Tellicherry, by his order dated July 11, 1955.
Then, on March 5, 1959, the petitioner filed the present writ petition and the basis of her companytentions is that the fundamental rights guaranteed to her under Arts.
The petitioner stated that at the end of August, 1949, her husband returned to Malabar, in India.
