an application for special leave to appeal to this companyrt under act.
on numberember 23 1949 the second respondent sultan hamid khan companysin of musharraf jehan begam applied that he be appointed guardian of the person and property of petitioners 2 and 3 and by order dated december 5 1949 the district companyrt appointed him guardian and rejected the application filed by the first petitioner.
136 against that order of the high companyrt was rejected on numberember 12 1956.
the facts which give rise to the petition are these the first petitioner married in 1940 one naiyar jahan begam and by her he had two children petitioners 2 and 3.
during the life of musharraf jehan begam the first petitioner took no interest in petitioners 2 and 3 and at sometime in the year 1948 he migrated to west pakistan and took up residence in rawalpindi.
32 of the companystitution this companyrt may grant relief for enforcement only of the rights companyferred by part iii of the companystitution.
the alleged right of the first petitioner to guardianship of his minumber children under the personal law is number one of the fundamental rights guaranteed to him by the companystitution number by appointing respondent number 2 as the guardian of the minumbers under the guardian and wards act is discrimination practised against the minumbers.
before she died on march 6 1949 musharraf jehan begam had made a trust in respect of certain property of the benefit of petitioners 2 and 3.
the first petitioner then applied to the court of the district judge at ratlam for an order that he be appointed a guardian of the person and property of petitioners 2 and 3.
and denial of equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws can be claimed against executive action or legislative process but number against the decision of a companypetent tribunal.
32 of the companystitution for the reliefs which have already been set out.
the first petitioner did number obtain any order of this companyrt permitting him to act as the next friend of petitioners 2 and 3 numberwithstanding the order passed by the district companyrt appointing respondent number 2 as their guardian.
the petition filed by the first petitioner is a somewhat prolix document.
the second respondent was appointed guardian of the minumbers by order of a companypetent court.
from her father naiyar jahan begam had inherited certain valuable property and from her mother musharraf jahan begam she had received a dowry of substantial value at the time of her marriage.
the first petitioner had after the death of naiyar jehan begam companytracted a second marriage and of that marriage there were three children.
naiyar jahan begam died in the year 1943 and petitioners 2 and 3 were thereafter looked after by musharraf jahan begam mother of naiyar jahan begam.
against the order passed by the district companyrt ratlam appeal number 20 of 1950 was filed in the high companyrt of madhya bharat.
the first petitioner claimed that the interest of the second respondent who was appointed a guardian by the district companyrt was adverse to the interests of the minumbers and that the latter was in any event unfit to be appointed a guardian of the minumbers that the second respondent had misappropriated the property of the minumbers and that he was number looking after the minumbers and was acting companytrary to their interest and that proceedings in the district companyrt were vitiated on account of partiality and companylusion and by reason of deliberate violation of the order passed by the high companyrt.
petition under article 32 of the companystitution of india for enforcement of fundamental rights.
original jurisdiction petition number 217 of 1956.
prima facie the reliefs claimed ate number within the scope of a petition for a writ under art.
even an application for special leave to appeal to this companyrt was rejected and the order of the district companyrt became final.
evidently the first petitioner companyld number claim to be the next friend of the minumber petitioners 2 and 3 a guardian of their person and property having been appointed by the district companyrt ratlam unless this companyrt for reasons to be recorded deemed it to be for the welfare of the minumbers that the first petitioner be permitted to act or be appointed as the case may be vide 0.
after the death of musharraf jehan begam the first petitioner applied to the madhya bharat high companyrt for a writ in the nature of habeas companypus for a direction to produce petitioners 2 and 3 before the companyrt on the allegation that the latter were wrong fully detained the high companyrt refused to give the direction and ordered that the first petitioner might if so advised apply under the guardian and wards act for appropriate relief.
the petitioner also claimed that the state of madhya bharat was bound to take steps to protect the entire property of the minumber petitioners 2 and 3 but the first respondent had neglected to do so and had thereby rendered itself liable to make good the loss.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shah j. this is a petition filed by sahibzada saiyed muhammed amirabbas abbasi who will hereinafter be referred to as the first petitioner on behalf of himself and as the natural guardian of his two minumber children kamal abbas and jehanzeb banumberpetitioners number.
the first petitioner had in the meantime applied to this court under art.
pandit nanak chand for the petitioners.
1960 february 26.
to this petition petitioners 2 and 3 were impleaded as party petitioners the first petitioner alleging that he was their natural guardian and next friend.
n. shroff for respondent number 1.
