- (1.) THE following question has been referred to a Full Bench by two learned Judges of this Court: "where the relief claimed is a writ o 'mandamus' relating to property situate within the jurisdiction of one High Court directed to an officer residing within the jurisdiction of that Court and it was that officer who and whose subordinates, also residing within the jurisdiction of the same High Court, originally passed the orders complained of but the writ cannot issue without setting aside, in exercise of the power of 'certiorari', the order passed in appeal, or revision by an authority residing outside the jurisdiction of that High Court and within the jurisdiction of another High Court, which is the High Court competent under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue the writ?"
(2.) IT is necessary to state shortly the circumstances in which the reference has been made. On 8-9-1949, the Deputy Custodian of' Evacuee Property, Gonda, in the exercise of powers vested in him under the United Provinces Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949, declared certain persons to be evacuees and their-property to be evacuee property. The petitioners now before this Court claimed to be sub-tenants of the evacuee, and they were allowed by the Assistant Custodian to remain in possession of the property upon the first petitioner being appointed supurddar. The Assistant Custodian subsequently formed the opinion that the petitioners' claim to be sub-tenants was fictitious, and he made a report to that effect to the Deputy Custodian who, on 10-5-1952, passed two orders directing that the petitioners be evicted from the property and that the latter be allotted to certain other persons. Against these orders applications in revision were filed by the petitioners before the Additional custodian it being asserted on their behalf that they had not been afforded an opportunity of contesting the notice of surrender served upon them under Section 8, Administration of Evacuee property Act, 1950 (which had replaced the -original Ordinance) read with R. 8 of the Rules made under the Act. By an order dated 29-7-1952, both applications were allowed. The orders of 10-5-1952, were set aside, and the Additional Custodian directed possession of the property to be restored to the petitioners. The matter then went to the Custodian General who, by an order dated 21-11-1952, made in exercise of his powers under Section 27 of the Act, quashed the order of the additional Custodian and restored the two orders of the Deputy Custodian dated 10-5-1952.
(3.) THE petitioners thereupon filed a petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The -only person made the respondent to the petition was "the Custodian, Evacuee Property, U. P. , Luck-now", and the prayer was that a "writ, direction or order of the nature of 'mandamus', prohibition or 'certiorari' or any of these may be issued, quashing tile order of the learned Custodian General so far as it relates to applicants, "and a direction be issued to the opposite party to issue a proper notice under Section 8 (4) Evacuee Property Act (to the applicants) and of giving the applicants an opportunity to contest the said notice of eviction after holding that the notice of the learned Custodian General so far as it relates to the applicants is ultra vires and illegal and without jurisdiction. ";