M.P. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance.
(2.) THE brief facts are these: The Plaintiff Appellant was arrested on 6 -9 -1956 under Section 147/323 IPC. His ball application was allowed on 27 -11 -56 but as soon as he was released on 28 -11 -1956 he was again arrested at the jail gate and was served with an order under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The Plaintiff remained a security prisoner from 28 -11 -1956 to 10 -2 -1957. This detention substantially affected the means of his dependents and the Defendant -Respondent No. 1 State of Uttar Pradesh, was bound to pay allowance for the maintenance of such dependents under Rule 52 of the Security Prisoners Rules, 1950. The Plaintiff -Appellant made an application to the District Magistrate, Moradabad, the Defendant -Respondent No. 2, on 1 -12 -1956 praying for maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 15/ - per day to be paid to his wife. The District Magistrate informed the Plaintiff that an enquiry was being made in regard to his application and the result of the same would be forwarded to the State Government. Such an enquiry was made and its result was forwarded to the Government but the Plaintiff did not hear from the Government till 23rd September, 1957. The latter informed the Plaintiff Appellant that his application had been rejected by an order dated 23rd March, 1957. The said order of the State Government was said to be arbitrary and illegal and, therefore, the Plaintiff instituted a suit praying for a decree for Rs. 1500/ - against the Defendants. The sum of Rs. 1500/ - comprised of Rs. 1110/ - as maintenance allowance from 28 -11 -1956 to 10 -2 -l957@ Rs. 15/ - per day and Rs. 390/ - as damages by way of interest for withholding the payment within the period. The suit was contested by the Defendants and various pleas were taken in defence. The civil court's jurisdiction to go into the Plaintiff's grievance was questioned. It was alleged that due enquiry was held in the Plaintiff's application and that it was found that the Plaintiff was not entitled to any maintenance allowance. The suit was also contended to be barred by Section 15 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The trial court framed the necessary issues and dismissed the suit. In the lower appellate court the decree of the trial court was maintained. Now, the Plaintiff has come up in the instant second appeal and in support thereof I have heard Shri S.S. Chandwaria, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff -Appellant. The learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions in opposition. The relevant rule whose interpretation is called for is as follows: 52. (1). Allowance for the maintenance of the dependents of a Security Prisoner will only be granted in cases where the State Govt. are satisfied that the detention of the prisoner in question has substantially affected the means of subsistence of those dependents. Shri Chandwaria has contended that the State Govt. was bound to give reasons for rejecting the Plaintiff's application and since it failed to do so the order was bad. He also contended that the court could scrutinise such reasons and see whether they were relevant or not. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the following cases. His Lordship then considered the cases - AIR 1956 Patna 104 AIR 1954 Assam 83 AIR 1957 Punjab 303, 1958 ALJ 671 and AIR 1976 SC 1207 and also the cases on which reliance was placed by learned Standing Counsel namely - AIR 1972 SC 1670 AIR 1970 SC 984 AIR 1968 SC 615 AIR 1952 SC 317 and AIR 1961 Assam 133 and proceeded on to observe - Ed.
(3.) IT seems to me that not much assistance is forthcoming from the aforesaid decided case law. The nature of satisfaction to be arrived at by a competent authority under a particular statute will not always be the same in respect of different statutes. The Magistrate's satisfaction in proceedings under Section 145(1) of the old Code of Criminal Procedure was of a different kind from the satisfaction of the Government under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Similarly, the satisfaction which the detaining authority has to reach under the Preventive Detention Act has its own peculiarity. Therefore, it is not expedient to lay down one uniform ratio which will be universally applicable in interpreting the nature of satisfaction whenever the said expression is used in different statutes. It seems to me that in Rule 52 of the U.P. Security Prisoners Rules, 1950 the satisfaction of the State Government is absolutely subjective. As the rule stands, it seems that maintenance allowance can only be granted when the State Government has reached a clear satisfaction that the detention of the prisoner in question has substantially affected the means of subsistence of the dependents. In case the Government is not able to reach such satisfaction then obviously no such allowance is to be granted. If the Government has certain doubts on the aforesaid question then it will be justified in not granting such maintenance. It is not the requirement of the rule that the Government should state the reasons for its non -satisfaction. Therefore, the order dated 23rd March, 1957 could not be held to be bad because no reasons were given for rejecting the application. Even if it be held that it is open to an aggrieved party to contend that the Government was really satisfied, still, in the instant case no such allegation was made in the plaint. The only girevance set out in the plaint was that the order was arbitrary and illegal as no reason was given for the rejection of the Plaintiff's application. It was also contended that the Defendant -Respondent No. 2 "made some wrong report which, too, was not binding on the Plaintiff on the principle -Audi alteran partem." This ground is different from a contention that in reality the Government was satisfied or should have been satisfied that the detention of the prisoner in question had substantially affected the means of subsistence of his dependents.;