V. Bhargava, J. - (1.) Shri Lt. Sahabzada Ravi Pratap Narain Singh, Raja of Rudrapur Estate, Rudrapur, District Deoria, has filed this petition, requesting this Court to issue a direction in the nature of a writ ob cerbiorari calling for all the records relating to the issue of a declaration under Section 8(1) (d) (v). U. P. Court of Warda Act, 1912 (Act iv [4] of 1912) for the assumption of superintendence of his estate by the Court of Wards, to quash the declaration and all the proceedings connected therewith and to direct the opposite party, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Court of Wards, U.P., to hand over the estate of the petitioner to him. This request for issue of a writ of certiorari and other directions was based on two grounds: The first ground was that Section 8(1)(d)(v), U. P. Court of Wards Act, 1912, was ultra vires inasmuch as it constituted an infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 19 (f) of the Constitution. The second ground was that, in making a declaration under Section 8, U. P, Court of Wards Act, the opposite-party was discharging a quasi-judicial function and, in doing so, it had contravened the fundamental principles of natural justice by not hearing the petitioner and giving him an opportunity to repudiate the charges.
(2.) The petitioner, in order to establish these grounds, filed a lengthy affidavit with his petition. This was met by a counter affidavit filed on be. half of opposite party No. 2, the Court of Wards and there after a rejoinder-affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner. It appears unnecessary to set out in detail all the facts that have been given in these three lengthy affidavits. We need only mention a few salient facts which are necessary for the purpose of deciding the question whether a writ should or should not issue.
(3.) Admittedly, the petitioner is a proprietor within the meaning of the U. P. Court of Wards Act, owning an estate situated partly in the district of Gorakhpur and partly in the district of Deoria. He had been managing this property for a long time. On 29.6.1949, a notice was served on him by the Collector of Deoria, calling upon him to show cause why he should not be declarad a disqualified person Under Section (1) (d) (v), U. P. Court of Wards Act, 1912, on grounds of mismanagement. Five grounds of mismanagement were mentioned in the notice as follows: 1. That he exacted bigar from his tenants. 2. That he connived at his Ziledar, Shri Jageshwar Lal, extorting one anna per rupee of annual rent as pharkhatawan from each tenant at the time of realization of rent and issue of receipts as a consideration for issuing receipts. 3. That he did not allow remissions in rent sanctioned by Government on account of floods in 1354 Fasli to the extent of Rs. 557-12-5. (d) That he was addicted to drink and immoral habits to a degree rendering him incapable of managing his estate resulting in wide-spread complaint against the estate and its employees. 6. That he compelled families of Kahars to work for him on a ridiculously low wage of one anna pet day. The notice went on to say that the petitioner was to submit his explanation to the Collector within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. The petitioner asked for extension of time to give his explanation and, within the time finally allowed, he submitted a written explanation to the Collector in which he refuted all the accusations which were made against him in the notice just mentioned. The petitioner denied that he exacted bigar from his tenants. He denied that he connived at his ziledar, Shri Jageshwar Lal, extorting one anna per rupee of annual rent as pharlchatawan from each tenant at the time of realization of rent and issue of receipts as a consideration for issuing receipts and further pleaded that Shri Jageshwar Lal had been transferred in accordance with the directions received from the Sub-divisional Officer and, there, fore, this question became irrelevant. He admitted that he had been unable to allow remissions to the extent of Rs. 557-12-5 in the year 1354 or 1355 Fasli but he added that these remissions had been allowed by him by 24 3-1949, in the year 1356 Fasli which meant that the remissions, in any case, had been allowed before this notice was issued to him. He denied that he was addicted to any drink or immoral habits. He also refuted the allegation that he had compelled families of Kahars to work for him on a ridiculously low wage of one anna per day. After giving these answers to the accusations made against him, he made a request that, after necessary enquiry and after affording him a chance of hearing, the notice under Section 8, Court of Wards Act, might be discharged. Subsequent to this notice, there was no further enquiry and no hearing of the petitioner. On 23-5-1950, the opposite party no. 1, the State of Uttar Pradesh, issued a notification, declaring the petitioner a disqualified proprietor Under Section 8 (1) (d) (v), U. P. Court of Wards Act, 1912, and directed that the declaration was to remain in force for a period of two years from the date of its publication. In pursuance of this declaration, superintendence of the estate of the petitioner was assumed by the Court of Wards and the estate is still under the management of the Court of Wards. He has, therefore, come up to this Court with the prayers mentioned above.;