JOGINDER SINGH WARYAM SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR RURAL REHABILITATION PEPSU
LAWS(P&H)-1954-4-17
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on April 06,1954

Joginder Singh Waryam Singh Appellant
VERSUS
Director Rural Rehabilitation Pepsu Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This judgment will dispose of two petitions, Nos. 228 and 248 of 1953,under Article 220 of the Constitution, as in both the cases same question has arisen whether this Court has jurisdiction issue a writunder the said Article to the Assistant Custodian General, whose office is admittedly located at Delhi, and so not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. . ' (2) In, both cases on revision the Assistant Custodian" General at Delhi has cancelled the allotments of lands in favour of the Petitioners. In 'petition No. 228 of 1953 the Petitioner is Joginder Singh and his allotment was cancelled by the Assistant Custodian General at Delhi by his order dated 28-10-1953. In petition No. 24S of 1953 the Petitioner is Inder Singh and Assistant . Custodian General at Delhi cancelled his allotment by the order dated 7-5-1953.
(2.) In both the petitions the Assistant Custodian General,at Delhi is one of the Respondents, the other two Respondents being Director of Rural Rehabilitation. at Patiala and the Assistant Commissioner Rehabilitation at Patiala.
(3.) The preliminary objection on behalf of the Respondents is that as the office of the Assistant Custodian General is situate at Delhi and apparently not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, so this Court has no jurisdictionunder Article 226of the Constitution to issue a writ to the Assistant Custodian General at Delhi. The reply on behalf of the Petitioners is that the mere location of the office of the revisional authority at Delhi makes no difference because the sub-ordinate rehabilitation authorities, who are to carry out and give effect to the orders, are residents within the jurisdiction of this Court, and so a writ, issued by this Court will be effective in preventing them from carrying, out the adverse orders of the Assistant Custodian General at Delhi to the detriment of the Petitioners.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.