Bishan Narain, J. - (1.) The facts leading to this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution are not in dispute. The Hyderabad (Sind) Electric Supply Company, Limited, was registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, with its registered office at Hyderabad (Sind). It held license under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, to supply electricity. After 1-3-1947, and presumably on account of partition of the country, about eighty per cent of the share-holders of the Company and six out of the nine directors migrated to India. Mangha Ram was its Managing Director for fife. When he migrated to India, he left the Company in charge of one Muhammed Bakhsh who was his authorised agent. The Company went on functioning till 1951. The Pakistan Government revoked the Company's license with effect from 16-1-1951. Mangha Ram as Managing Director of the Company preferred a claim under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, Act XLIV of 1950, on the allegation that the Company had left machinery, immovable properties etc. in Pakistan, i.e. Hyderabad (Sind) and sought valuation of the same. By order dated 30-8-1952 the Claims Officer (Industrial) valued the claim at Rs. 51,00,000/-, but disallowed it on the ground that the Company had not been proved to be a displaced body. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Chief Claims Commissioner, but it was also dismissed by order dated 26-2-1953. In this order, however, Shri I. M. Lall, Chief Claims Commissioner, observed that if subsequent to the dismissal of the revision petition the Company is recognized by the Registrar of Companies, Bombay, and there is a change of status, it can apply to the appropriate authority for 'reconsideration of this order. It appears that before the Chief Claims Commissioner heard the revision, an application had been made to the Registrar of Companies, Bombay, for recognition and registration of the Company under Section 43 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act. 1951. The Company was so recognised and registered on 29-41953, at Bombay. Mangha Ram on behalf of the Company, as registered under the Debts Adjustment Act, thereupon again applied on 30-4-1953, to the Chief Claims Commissioner to value its assets left in Pakistan, This application was sent to the Claims Commissioner for valuation. He came to the conclusion that after registration under the Debts ' Adjustment Act the Company had become a displaced Company and by order dated 16-5-1953, he Valued the claim at Rs. 44,32,500/-subject to a mortgage of Rs. 2,24,000/- of the Sind Government. In 1954, the Displaced Persons (Supplementary) Act, 1954, was passed and on 16-3-1955, the Settlement Commissioner issued a notice to Mangha Ram, Managing Director of the Company, to show cause why the order of the Claims Officer dated 30-8-1952 should not be revised and called upon him to appear before him on 31-3-1955. Thereafter on 19-5-1955 another notice was sent to him to show cause why the order of the Claims Commissioner dated 16-5-1953 should not be revised. The Settlement Commissioner after hearing the parties held that the Company was not a displaced Company and set aside the valuation made by the Claims Commissioner. This order was made on 28-9-1955. The Company through Mangha Ram has challenged the validity of this order of the Settlement Commissioner by the present writ petition.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the validity of the impugned order on the grounds (1) that the Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revise the order of the Claims Commissioner dated 16-5-1953, and (2) that the order is erroneous on the face of it.
(3.) The contention raised on behalf of the Company in the first ground is that the Claims Commissioner (Shri K. G. Bhojwani in 1953) under the Act of 1950 and the Settlement Commissioner (Shri R. K. Vaish in 1955) under the 1954 Act being authorities of co-ordinate jurisdiction, the litter could not reopen and revise the decision of the former and that, in any case, the Settlement Commissioner had reopened the case in contravention of Rule 18 made under the Displaced Persons (Supplementary) Act, 1954. To determine the soundness of this contention it is necessary to refer to the statutory provisions relevant for this purpose.;