JUDGMENT Thokchom Khonou Singh and 74 others have brought the present application for obtaining a writ of Mandamus or any other writ of a like nature or an order directing respondents 1 and 2 to show cause why the order dated 15-11-1954 passed by the Chief Commissioner, Manipur, on the petitions dated 31-7-1954 making a demand of the petitioners right to compensation, by which the petitions were rejected on the ground that the dates "8-1-1946 and 5-1-1946" were tampered with, be not set aside, and after hearing the parties the aforesaid order be quashed. 2. It has been alleged by the petitioners that during the last world war (II) the Central Government for the purposes of meeting actual or apprehended attack by the enemies and for facilitating any operation of the Military Forces, by order directed in respect of villagers of Top Dusra and Khurai Khongnang within the Imphal East Tahasil Manipur State that all persons of the said villages should remove themselves under R. 49, Defence of India Rules, and certain members of the said Military Forces acting in the course of their duty, did certain works on the portion of the lands in the said villages after demolishing houses of the petitioners under R. 78, Defence of India Rules. The house properties of the petitioners were thus removed and destroyed by the Allied Military Forces and so the petitioners claim that in pursuance of the Rules 49 and 78, Defence of India Rules, they were to be paid proper compensation for loss they had sustained as a result of removal and such destructions according to R. 96, Defence of India Rules. The then Manipur Government is stated to have ordered that the petitions for compensation should be filed by January 1946 and such petitions should be written by the petition writer of the Tahasil and be stamped with court-fee stamps purchased at the Tahasil, but as the Petition writer of the Tahasil was unable to write separate petition for every villager and as the Tahasil was unable to supply requisite number of court-fee stamps for all the villagers, the petitioners from No. 1 to 38 made a joint petition of the claim and the petitioners from 39 to 75 made another joint petition to the Claims Officer, Manipur for measurement and calculation of compensation by the Claims Office and for payment according to such calculation. These joint petitions were rejected by the Chief Commissioner, Honble Mr. E. P. Moon. But later on a reference was made to the Central Government .and the latter ordered cancellation of the Chief Commissioners order and directed that such joint petitions should be accepted for consideration. After this order the petitioners prayed before the Claims Office that their petitions might be taken into consideration when it was found that some interested persons in collusion with some personnel of the staff of the Claims Office committed mischief of substituting used court-fee stamps in place of new court-fee stamps used on two joint petitions filed by the petitioners and subsequently the leaders of the petitioners were ordered to be prosecuted under S. 262, I.P.C., for fraudulently using court-fee stamps which had already been used on a prior occasion on the joint petitions for compensation. Two criminal cases Nos. G. R. 735 of 1953 and G. R. 736 of 1953 were started and heard by a Senior E. A. C. who found that the petitioners had nothing to do with using the used court-fee stamps and there was no tampering with the figures of the dates, months and years in "8-1-1946 and 5-1-1945" and so the cases were discharged vide annexures-A and B. The petitioners then file 2 petitions before the E. A. C., Claims Office, Manipur on 31-7-1954 making a demand for their right to compensation and the Claims Office referred the matter to the Honble Chief Commissioner who rejected these petitions on the ground which has already been mentioned by me above vide annexures-C and D and the order of the Chief Commissioner annexure-E. As the respondents have failed to perform their statutory obligations under R. 96, Defence of India Rules, the present petition for a writ of Mandamus has been brought in this Court. 3. The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit in reply which means that the facts mentioned above as alleged by the petitioners are admitted by them to be correct. 4. It has not been contended that respondent 3 is an unnecessary pary to this petition vide Chitaleys Constitution of India, Vol. 2, page 1632, para. 3. The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit in reply which means that the facts mentioned above as alleged by the petitioners are admitted by them to be correct. 4. It has not been contended that respondent 3 is an unnecessary pary to this petition vide Chitaleys Constitution of India, Vol. 2, page 1632, para. 1, and as the Central Government is the State Government for this Part C State and as the house properties of these petitioners were removed or destroyed by the Allied Military Forces presumably under the instructions of the Defence Department, I think the Union of India was properly made a party in this case. 5. The present petitioners 1 to 38 submitted a joint petition of claims and the petitioners 39 to 75 submitted another joint petition of claim to the Claims Office, Manipur, within time in accordance with the orders of the Manipur Government by which the petitions for compensation were to be filed by January 1946. These petitions were rejected by the Chief Commissioner on the ground that joint petitions could not be entertained. Later on the Central Government on reference set aside the order of the Chief Commissioner and ordered that joint petitions should be accepted for consideration. But these petitions were not considered even though the petitioners filed two other petitions thereby making a demand for their right to compensation vide annexures-C and D. But these petitions were rejected on 15-11-1954 on the ground that the dates "8-1-1946 and 5-1-1946" were tampered with. The judgments, Annexures-A and B clearly show that" the present petitioners were not held responsible for using the used court-fee stamps and it was held that there was no tampering with dates, months and years and so by means of the order dated 15-11-1954 vide annexure-E the respondents failed to do their duty as the E. A. C. rejected the petition under orders of the Honblel Chief Commissioner without going into the merits and this was against the express orders of the Central Government, vide para. 5 of the petition. 6. 5 of the petition. 6. It has not been denied that during the last war the Central Government for the purpose of meeting actual or apprehended attack by the enemies and for facilitating any operation of the Military Forces by order directed in respect of villagers of Top Dusra and Khurai Khongnang that all persons of the said villages should remove themselves under R. 49, Defence of India Rules. The defence of India Rules were framed under S. 2, Defence of India Act, which was promulgated after a proclamation of emergency had been made under S. 102, Government of India Act, 1935, on 3-9-1939, on receipt of information from His Majestys Government in the United Kingdom that a state of war existed between His Majesty and Germany. The Defence of India Act was enacted on 29-9-1939 and before that date the Governor General had issued the Defence of India Ordinance, 1939 under the powers given him by S. 72 of the former Government of India Act. As the Federal Legislature had not yet come into existence and S. 316 of the Constitution Act provided that during the transitional period the powers conferred by the provisions of the Act for the time-being in force on the Federal Legislature, should be exercised by the Indian Legislature, the Defence of India Ordinance was issued under the former Government of India Act. 7. Section 2, Defence of India Act, confers-on the Central Government powers to make rules for regulating conduct of persons in respect of areas the control of which was considered necessary or expedient and the removal of such persons from those areas. Powers were also conferred for making rules requiring any person or class of persons to comply with a scheme of defence (clauses 7 and 8). Clause 24 of Sub-S. (2), Defence of India Act, conferred powers on the Central Government for making rules for requisitioning of any property moveable or immovable including taking possession thereof and the issue of any orders in respect thereof and under clause 5 of Sub-S. (3) of S. 2 rules could be framed prescribing the duties and powers of public servants and other persons as regards preventing the contravention of, or securing observance of the rules. 8. 8. Section 19, Defence of India Act, runs as follows : (1) Where by or under any rule made under this Act, any action is taken of the nature described in Sub-S. (2) of S. 299, Government of India Act, 1935, there shall be paid compensation, the amount of which shall be determined in the manner and in accordance with the principles, hereinafter set out, that is to say : (a) Where the amount of compensation can be fixed by agreement, it shall be paid in accordance with such agreement. (b) Where no such agreement can be reached, the Central Government shall appoint as arbitrator a person qualified under Sub-S. (3) of S. 220 of the above-mentioned Act for appointment as a Judge of a High Court. (c) The Central Government may, in any particular case, nominate a person having expert knowledge as to the nature of the property acquired, to assist the arbitrator, and where such nomination is made, the person to be compensated may also nominate an assessor for the said purpose. (d) At the commencement of the proceedings before the arbitrator, the Central Government and the person to be compensated shall state what, in their respective opinions, is a fair amount of compensation. (e) The arbitrator in making his award shall have regard to (i) the provisions of Sub-S. (1) of S. 23, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, so far as the same can be made applicable. (ii) whether the acquisition is of a permanent or temporary character. (f) An appeal shall lie to the High Court against an award of an arbitrator except in cases where the amount thereof does not exceed an amount prescribed in this behalf by rule made by the Central Government. (g) Save as provided in this Section and in any rules made thereunder, nothing in any law for the time being in force shall apply to arbitrations under this Section.......... ." 9. Rule 96, Defence of India Rules, provides as follows : (1) Whenever in pursuance of any of Pr. 49, (in the present case orders were issued under Rr. (g) Save as provided in this Section and in any rules made thereunder, nothing in any law for the time being in force shall apply to arbitrations under this Section.......... ." 9. Rule 96, Defence of India Rules, provides as follows : (1) Whenever in pursuance of any of Pr. 49, (in the present case orders were issued under Rr. 49, 75A and 78), 66, 72, 78 and 80 any property is removed destroyed, rendered useless, used, requisitioned or acquired by, or otherwise placed at the disposal or under the control of the Central Government or a Provincial Government and the circumstances are not such as to render the provisions of S. 19, Defence of India Act, 1939 applicable, the owner of such property shall be paid such compensation for any loss he may have sustained as a result of such removal, destruction, rendering useless, use, requisitioning, acquisition, disposal or control, as may be fixed in accordance with the provisions of this rule. (2) In default of agreement between Government and the owner of the property, the Central Government or the Provincial Government as the case may be, shall by general or special order specify the authority or person through which or whom any claim for compensation under sub-rule (1) shall be submitted and the authority or person by which or whom any such claim shall be adjudged and awarded. (3) The Central Government or the Provincial Government, as the case may be. may further by general or special order prescribe the conditions to the authority or person responsible for adjudging or awarding claims for compensation payable, and may give said supplementary orders as to the assessment and payment of compensation as may appear to it to be necessary or expedient. 10. A perusal of these rules makes it quite clear that the respondents were under a statutory duty to pay compensation to the petitioners for any loss which they sustained as a result of destruction, removal, rendering useless, use and requisitioning of their properties and the proceedings laid down under R. 96 and R. 75A(5) should have been followed. 10. A perusal of these rules makes it quite clear that the respondents were under a statutory duty to pay compensation to the petitioners for any loss which they sustained as a result of destruction, removal, rendering useless, use and requisitioning of their properties and the proceedings laid down under R. 96 and R. 75A(5) should have been followed. But this was not done and the joint petitions were rejected on the ground that there had been alteration in figures relating to dates, even though this point had been dealt with by the competent criminal Court by means of the annexures-A and B. The Central Government was competent to issue supplementary orders under sub-rule 3 of R. 96, but in spite of a supplementary order respondents 1 and 2 failed to discharge their statutory obligations. 11. The Defence of Indian Act (Act 35 of 1939) remained in force till 30-9-1946 as it was to lapse alter six months of the termination of war which ended on 1-4-1945. Ordinance 12 of 1946, the Defence of India (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1946 was then promulgated and this Ordinance was repealed by the Repealing and Amending Act of 1947 (Act 2 of 1948) which came into force in January 1948. Section 3 of this Act provided as follows : "The repeal by this Act by any enactment shall not affect any other enactment in which such enactment has been applied, incorporated or referred to; and this Act shall not affect the validity, invalidity, effect or consequences of anything already done or suffered or any right, title, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred, or any remedy or proceeding in respect thereof, or any release or discharge of or from any debt, penalty, obligation, liability, claim or demand or any indemnity already granted, or the proof of any past act or thing;........." 12. This provision clearly shows that any rights which accrued to the present petitioners under R. 96, Defence of India Rules could not be adversely affected and those rights will have to be determined in accordance with the supplementary orders issue by the Central Government; vide S. 6, General Clauses Act, 1897, which provides that where this Act or any Central Government Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act repeals any enactment hereto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears the repeal shall not (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed....... 13. It has been repeatedly held by the Board that an intention to alienate private rights without compensation should not be imputed to Legislature unless expressed in clear terms, vide - Attorney General v. De Keysers Royal Hotel, 1920 AC 508 at p. 576 (A) where it was held that the Crown had no power during a war to take property of a subject for administrative purpose without paying any compensation, vide also - Santi Devi v. Province of West Bengal, AIR 1954 Cal 212 (B). I, therefore, hold that the respondents should have determined the petitions for compensation on the merits. 14. The next question which has to be examined is whether a writ of Mandamus can properly be issued in the present case against the respondents. The respondents were under a statutory obligation to determine the amount of compensation under R. 96, Defence of India Rules, and also under supplementary order which has been issued to them by the Central Government. In Chitaleys Constitution of India, volume 2, page 1806, the cases in which the writ of Mandamus can properly be issued have been enumerated as follows : (i) Where a statutory duty of a ministerial nature has been imposed upon the Authority and the Authority has refused to discharge it, Mandamus will lie to compel it to do so. (Sec Kendall v. United States, (1838) 12 Pet 524 at p. 610 (C). (ii) Where power is given to a certain authority and in the circumstances of the case, the exercise of the power is a duty, Mandamus will lie to enforce the duty. (Sec Kendall v. United States, (1838) 12 Pet 524 at p. 610 (C). (ii) Where power is given to a certain authority and in the circumstances of the case, the exercise of the power is a duty, Mandamus will lie to enforce the duty. (iii) Where power is given to the Authority to take a certain action it certain named conditions are present and the Authority exercises the power in the absence of such conditions, Mandamus will lie to restrain it from doing so, vide also - State of Bombay v. Laxmidas, AIR 1952 Bom 468 at p. 471 (D). (iv) Where a duty is imposed upon an Authority to enquire into, consider and decide a matter with a view to taking certain action thereon, and the Authority improperly or wrongfully refuses to deal with the matter at all, Mandamus will lie to compel it to deal with it according to law. (v) Where an Authority empowered to take a decision by using its direction and judgment, acts upon irrelevant and extraneous considerations, Mandamus will lie to compel it according to law. (vi) When in dealing with a certain matter, entrusted to its jurisdiction by the law, an Authority acts arbitrarily and unreasonably without due care, mandamus will lie to make it correct its course. (See - S.K. Ghosh v. Vice Chancellor, Utkal University, AIR 1952 Orissa 1 (E) and - B.C. Das Gupta v. Bijoyranjan, AIR 1953 Cal 212 (F). (vii) Where power is given to an Authority for a certain purpose and that power is used for some other purpose, Mandamus can be issued to compel the Authority to obey the law; and (viii) Where power is given to do a certain thing and the mode in which such tiling is to be done is also prescribed, such mode must be followed in doing the thing. Otherwise, Mandamus in appropriate form can issue. 15. The present case clearly falls within clauses (i), (iv) and (vi) referred to above. Where a matter is left to the absolute subjective discretion of the Executive, Mandamus will not lie to question the decision of the Executive on such matter. Otherwise, Mandamus in appropriate form can issue. 15. The present case clearly falls within clauses (i), (iv) and (vi) referred to above. Where a matter is left to the absolute subjective discretion of the Executive, Mandamus will not lie to question the decision of the Executive on such matter. Where a matter is not left to the subjective opinion, of the Executive and has to be decided by the Executive after considering pros and cons, Mandamus will not lie to question the decision, if it is within the jurisdiction of the Authority and there is no vitiating circumstance. Mandamus will not lie in regard to a merely ministerial act which an officer has to do in obedience to the orders of Appellant superior. Where an alternative, efficient and adequate remedy is available writ of Mandamus should not be issued. The present case is not covered by any of the above exceptions, as in this case the respondents have failed to decide the claims relating to compensation on the merits even though they were under the statutory obligation to decide them. Section 16 of the Defence of India Act provides that no order made in exercise of any power conferred by or under this Act shall be called in question in any Court, and so it becomes clear that the present petitioners could not have their remedy by means of a regular suit in a civil Court. 16. The present petition, therefore, succeeds and the order dated 15-11-1954 referred to in annexure-E as well as the order of the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Claims, Manipur, in annexure-E are quashed and the joint petitions of the present petitioners for compensation will be heard and decided on the merits according to law. The writ of Mandamus is issued in the above-mentioned terms as against the respondents. Order accordingly.