Wanchoo, C.J. - (1.) This is a reference by a Division Bench of this Court, and the following two questions have been referred to a Pull Bench for reply: "1. Whether the provisions of Section 8(1)(c)(ii)(iii) & (iv) read with Section 12, Court of Wards Act, are inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and (5) of the Constitution? 2. Whether the provision of Section 9(3), Court of Wards Act, of 1951 is repugnant to Article 19 (1)(f) and (5) of the Constitution of India?"
(2.) The facts, which have led to this reference, may be briefly narrated. The applicant Rao Bhagwatsingh is the jagirdar of Duni. The Government is intending to take action under Section 8(1) (c) of the Court of Wards Act, 1951, for declaring the applicant incapable of managing or unfitted to manage his estate, and in that connection the Collector of Jaipur has been directed to make an enquiry under Section 9(1) of the Act into the circumstances of the applicant, and the extent of his indebtedness. The applicant, thereupon, contended before the Collector that certain provisions of the Court of Wards Act were ultra vires. He also gave notice to the State not to proceed against him under Section 8(1) (c) of the Act. As the State is proceeding with the matter, and the Collector is continuing the enquiry under Section 9(1), the applicant made this application under Article 226 to this Court. By that application he challenged the validity of certain provisions in the Court of Wards Act, 1951, and this reference is with respect to those provisions. Section 8(1) reads as follows: "Land-holders shall be deemed to be disqualified to manage their own estate when they are- (a) minors; (b) persons adjudged by a competent civil court to be of unsound mind and incapable of managing their own estate; (c) persons declared by the Government to be incapable of managing or unfitted to manage their own estate (i) ..... (ii) owing to their having been convicted of a non-bailable offence or being unfitted by vicious habits or bad character for the management of their own estate, (iii) owing to their having entered upon a course of extravagance, (iv) owing to their failure without sufficient reason to discharge the debts and liabilities due by them, (v) owing to such mismanagement as has caused general discontent among the tenants:"
(3.) The attack in the present case is against Section 8(1)(c)(ii)(iii) & (iv), and the contention of the applicant is that these provisions, which result in depriving him of his property and thus violating his fundamental right of holding his property under Article 19(1)(f), are ultra vires, because they are not saved by Article 19(5) on the ground of their being reasonable restrictions on his right of holding his property. It is urged that the substantive provisions are so vague that they cannot be held as reasonable restrictions, and further that the procedural provisions are of such a nature that they also cannot be upheld as reasonable restrictions.;