LEKHRAJ SATRAMDAS, LALVANI versus DEPUTY CUSTODIAN-CUM-MANAGING OFFICER & ORS.

Citation: [1966] 1 S.C.R. 120 · Decided: 04-05-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SARKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, V. RAMASWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

120 
LEKHRAJ SATRAMDAS, LALV ANI 
v. 
DEPUTY CUSTODIAN-CUM-MANAGING OFFICER & ORS. 
May 4, 1965 
·[A. Jo.:. SARKAR, M. HJI>AYATl.:I.I.AI! Al'O V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.J 
Ad11Unistratio11 of £\•acuee Properly Act 1950, s. 10(2) (b)-Alanacer 
for evacuee shops appv/nied by Deputy Cuslotiiai1 of Evacuee Properly-· 
Dtpury Cur1odian whe1her can cancel appoinunent subsequently. 
The appellant was appointed Manager of two evacuee •hops which 
vcr;ted in the Custodian of Evacuee Property. '!be appointment was made 
in 1952 under s. 10(2) (b) of the Administration of EYacuec Property Act, 
1950. In 1956 the appellant was informed hy letter Ex. p.8 writlen hy tile 
Custodian of Evacuee Property that a decision to allot the shops to him 
had been taken and that subscqucnUy the shops would be sold to him. 
The letter was based on the orders of the Chief SetUement C.ommissiooer 
in Ex. p. 5. 
llowevcr the said de.:ision could not he implemented and in 
punuance of orders from the Chief Setllemoot Omunissioner the Deputy 
Custodian hy Ex. p. 13 and proceedings Ex. p. 16 cancelled the appoint-
ment of the appellant as Manager and asked him to hand over pos""8ioo 
of the shops. The a?inllant tiled a writ petition in the High Coun praying 
that the order Ex. p. 13 and proceedings p. 16 be 
quashed, that the 
possession of the shops be given to him, and that the sale of the shops be 
llDpped. The High Court gr:wted the first two prayers but not the third. 
Both parties appealed to a Division Bench of the High C-Ourt which held 
apin.•t the appellant on all these counts. By cenificatc under Art. 133 (I) (a) 
he came to the Supreme Court. 
It was cont.ended on behalf of the appellant : (I) that he was not 
lawfully removed from the management of the shol"' as the Deputy Custo-
dian had no power to cancel an appointment, (2) that the ordor of 
removal in Ex. 13 and Ex. 16 was made by the Managing Officer cum 
Deputy Custodian of Evacuee property under the Displaced Per;ons (Com· 
pensation and Rchabili:ation) Act 1954 which conferred M 
power on 
•uch an officer to cancel the appointm<:r.t of the manager and (3) that hy 
virtue of Ex. p. 5 and F.x. p. 8 ·the shops s1ood allotted to the "ppollant. 
HELD ; (i) Section 16 of the General Qauscs Act provides that the 
power to terminate is a necessary ~i<ljunct of the power of appointnlCnt an<l 
ii, exercised as an incident to or consequence of that power. ·The power of 
appointment conferred on the Cu'1o<l1an under s. 10(2)(h) of the 1950 Act 
confers by implication upon the Custodian the power to suspend or dismis." 
any person appointed. It is manifest that the mauagemcnt of the appellant 
with regard to the business oonccrn.c,. could be lawfully terminated "Y the 
Deputy Custodian by ,;nuc of s. 10(2)(b) of the 1950 Act read with 
s. 16 of the General Clauses Act. [124 F-G] 
(ii) The order cancelling the appellant's appointment a.~ man:1gcr could 
not be said to be invalid on the ground that it purponed to have bcco 
made under the J 954 Act. The Act of 1950 was not repealed by the Act 
of 1954 and continued in force. 
Under s. 10(2)(b) of the 1950 Act the 
Deputy Custodian is the proper authority to cancel the appointment of 
a manager and the order of cancellation must therefore be held to be 
valid. 
The principle is that the act of public servant must be ascribed 
to an :ictual exi.~ting authority under which it would have validity rather 
th•n one under which it would be void. ! 125 C-EJ 
• 
.\ 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
• 
II 
• 
• 
• 
• 
' • 
SATRAMDAS v. DY. CUSTODIAN (Ramaswami, J.) 
121 
A 
Ba/akotaiah v. The Union of India, [1958] S.C.R. 1052, referred to. -
B 
(iii) Even on the assumption that the order of cancellation was i!lepl 
the appellant was not entitled to a writ from the High Court. Writs can 
be i=ed only to enforce the performance of statutory duties, not duties 
under a contract. 
The appointment of the appellant \\'as under a con-
tract [126 A-BJ 
Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay Presidency and Aden v. Bombay 
'frwt Corporation Ltd., 63 I.A. 408 and P. K. Banerjee \·. L. J. Simonds, 
A.LR. 1947 Cal. 307 referred to. 
(iv) Ex. 5 and Ex. 8 did not make any final allotment in favour of 
the appellant. 
1l1c letters did not show any concluded contract of sale. 
[127 A-Bl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 
Civil Appeal Nos. 414-
c 
416 of 1963. 
Appeals from the judgment and order dated December 6, 1960 
of the Kerala High Court in A.S. Nos. 445 and 484 of 1960. 
R. Mahallngier and K. N

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.