JUDGEMENT : NEVASKAR, J. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or certiorari. 2. The petition is based on the following allegations: Petitioner's father Habibulla, who died about 20 years back left immovable properties in the City of Indore. Petitioner and his brother Bashirulla were the only heirs to these properties. Bashhulla, who was not legally married and consequently had no legal issue, went mad in 1942 and later died in 1950. The petitioner therefore claims to be the sole proprietor of the properties left by his father. It is alleged that the opponent Custodian served a notice upon the petitioner dated 21-9-1954 mentioning therein one Iqbal as the son of his brother Bashirulla and Kamrunisa as his wife and the petitioner was called upon to show cause why they should not be declared as evacuees and their right and interest in the properties of Bashirulla as the evacuee properties. 3. The petitioner thereupon applied to the opponent to supply to him the copies of record including the evidence in his possession, on the basis of which he formed an opinion about the factual existence of Iqbal and Kamrunisa as well as their lawful relationship with Bashirulla, the facts indicating their being evacuees and their right and interest in the properties mentioned in the notice. 4. The Custodian rejected the application on the ground that the information on the basis of which the notice was issued was of a confidential character and no copies could be supplied to the petitioner. 5. The petitioner asserted that the opponent is under a statutory obligation to supply to him the copies of the record including evidence of witnesses which in his opinion constituted a prima facie case. 6. It is further asserted that there is overwhelming evidence recorded by the Custodian indicating that Bashirulla had no lawful wife or child and the rejection of the petitioner's application was prompted with a desire to conceal the true state of record and was mala fide. 7. The legality of notice dated 21-9-1954 is also challenged on the ground that it does not state the grounds upon which the properties mentioned the notice are sought to be declared evacuee properties. 8. 7. The legality of notice dated 21-9-1954 is also challenged on the ground that it does not state the grounds upon which the properties mentioned the notice are sought to be declared evacuee properties. 8. The petitioner complains that his fundamental right to property is intended to be violated by the act of the opponent in issuing this notice and further the opponent intends to dispossess the petitioner from these properties. 9. The petitioner therefore craves the assistance of this Court for the issue of a Writ of certiorari for quashing the notice aforesaid and of a writ of mandamus for supplying to the petitioner copies of the record as requested by him. 10. In his return the opponent Custodian submitted that from enquiries made by an Inspector of the department before institution of proceedings under S.7, Administration of Evacuee Property Act, No.31 of 1950 it was revealed that Bashirulla's wife Kamrunisa and his son Iqbal had migrated to Pakistan after 1-3-1947. They have an interest in the properies left by Bashirulla mentioned in the notice dated 21-9-1954. These enquiries were, according to the opponent, for the satisfaction of the opponent that there are grounds to proceed under S.7 of the Act. The onus then is shifted on the petitioner to show cause against the notice and to prove that the persons named therein are not evacuees and the property mentioned therein is not evacuee property. 11. It is denied that the stage of enquiry prior to issue of notice is quite quasi-judicial or judicial and the part of the record anterior to the notice does not constitute public documents and the petitioner, therefore, has no right to ask for their copies. 12. The notice dated 21-9-1954 is asserted to be lawful and does mention the grounds on which the property is sought to be declared evacuee property. 13. It is denied that any fundamental right of the petitioner is sought to be infringed and it is asserted that the proceedings taken are in conformity with the provisions of law. The petitioner therefore is said to have no right to the issue of the writs prayed for. 14. The questions which then arise for consideration on these respective submissions of the parties are: 1. Is the notice dated 21-9-1954 issued by the Custodian under S.7 illegal and if so should it be quashed? 2. The petitioner therefore is said to have no right to the issue of the writs prayed for. 14. The questions which then arise for consideration on these respective submissions of the parties are: 1. Is the notice dated 21-9-1954 issued by the Custodian under S.7 illegal and if so should it be quashed? 2. Is the refusal of the Custodian to supply to the petitioner the copies of record including evidence recorded prior to issue of notice under S.7, unlawful? 15. As regards (1) the legality of notice it is assailed on two grounds. First it is contended that the contents of the notice are defective in as much as it does not state with precision the grounds on which the notice is based or in other words the notice does not set forth the gist of information re-received by the Custodian which led him to issue that notice. Secondly it is said that the notice is not served upon the evacuee and hence the notice is illegal. 16. In support of this contention the learned counsel relied upon the decision in - 'Abdul Majid v. P.R. Nayak', AIR 1951 Bom 440 (A). 17. As regards (2) the learned Counsel relied upon the provisions of S.49 of the Act and R. 35 of the Rules framed thereunder. 18. Section 49 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act reads as follows: "All record prepared or registers maintained under this Act shall be deemed to be public documents within the meaning of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), and shall be presumed to be genuine until the contrary is proved." 19. Rule No.35 of the Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950 provides for fees for inspection and copying charges payable by a person desirous of obtaining any copy from any record maintained under the Act and the Rules thereunder. 20. It is contended by Mr. Khan for the petitioner on the basis of these legal provisions that each and every part of the record prepared by the Custodian either for the initial formation of his opinion or for subsequent enquiry is a public document and the petitioner has got a right to obtain the copies on payment of requisite fees as laid down in Rule No.35. 21. 21. As regards (1) it is contended by the learned Advocate General who appeared for the opponent that these objections in the first place ought to be taken before the tribunal. It is further contended that the allegations regarding the illegality of notice are vague and as regards the assertion of the petitioner that Bashirulla had no wife nor child investigation into the facts would be necessary and which would be done by the opponent tribunal at the appropriate stage. 22. It is further asserted that the petitioner from his very petition appears to have no doubt as regards the grounds on which the notice is based. He knows that Kamrunisa is stated to be the widow of Bashirulla and Iqbal his son. Petitioner cannot deny the fact that Bashirulla had an equal interest in the properties comprised in the notice. The decision therefore reported in AIR 1951 Bom 440 (A), cannot apply to the facts of the present case. 23. As regards the question with regard to supply of copies it is contend that the Custodian acting under the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act is not a Court but is a tribunal Reliance for this proposition is placed on the case reported in - 'Ebrahim Aboobaker v. Tek Chand', AIR 1953 SC 298 (B). It is therefore urged that any analogy with a Magisterial enquiry will be out of place in his case. 24. It is also contended that S.49 of the Act presupposes preparation of record as being obligatory upon the Custodian in pursuance of the procedure laid down in the Act. Section 49 has no reference to that portion of the information of which he is under no legal obligation to maintain a record. The obligation to maintain a record of evidence arises when after the notice the person notified appears and objects to the declaration of property as evacuee property. The proceedings then assume a quasi-judicial character. Whatever evidence is given by the person notified against forms part of a judicial record and the Custodian in turn can bring on record material which would controvert the effect of that evidence. The proceedings then assume a quasi-judicial character. Whatever evidence is given by the person notified against forms part of a judicial record and the Custodian in turn can bring on record material which would controvert the effect of that evidence. The failure of the Custodian not to appraise him of the material collected by him before the issue of notice cannot possibly harm him because it cannot be used against him unless it is placed on record when the stage of quasi-judicial inquiry begins. Reliance in this connection is placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case reported in - 'Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commr. of Income Tax West Bengal', (S) AIR 1955 SC 65 (C). 25. As regards the first contention the notice cannot be said to be defective in form and illegal on the ground that it does not set forth the gist of information on which the same is grounded. The petitioner from his own petition is clear that what is asserted is that Bashirulla left a widow and a child as his heirs and they have an interest in the properties mentioned in the list. 26. Although in a given case notice may be defective and the person notified may be left really in the dark as to what he has to contest yet on the facts of the present case such is not the case. 27. As regards want of service of notice upon evacuees that cannot justify the prayer for quashing the notice. It is open for the petitioner to approach the Custodian and show to him the defect in his procedure if he so chooses. Notice can only be quashed if there is some inherent defect or illegality in the notice and not because it is not served upon a particular party who ought to be served. There is no cause to assume that legal requirements will not be followed. 28. As regards the supply of copies the contention of the learned Advocate General appears to be correct. 29. There are three stages through which a Custodian has to pass before any property can be declared as evacuee property : "1. Formation of opinion that a person is an evacuee and any property in which he has an interest is an evacuee property. 2. 29. There are three stages through which a Custodian has to pass before any property can be declared as evacuee property : "1. Formation of opinion that a person is an evacuee and any property in which he has an interest is an evacuee property. 2. Notice to evacuee and other persons interested to show cause why the property be not declared as evacuee property. 3. And on cause being shown to hold an enquiry as regards the points raised by the person notified. 30. As regards the first stage the Custodian may be satisfied either on some enquiry or otherwise as regards the fact that a person is an evacuee and any property is an evacuee property. At that stage he is not by law required to assume a judicial or quasi-judicial role. But when his opinion is formed and he issues notice under S.7 then the stage of quasi-judicial enquiry begins. Then whatever he puts on record assumes the character of a public document and a party becomes entitled by rules to obtain the copies thereof. It is inconceivable to think of a public document which a Custodian is not by law bound to maintain. He may orally hear an information and may act upon it. Nothing prevents him from doing so. He may act on the reports of his subordinates which may be ultimately proved to be incorrect. Neither the oral information received nor the reports of his subordinates can assume the form of a public document. 31. Refusal to supply the copies of such a record, if any, cannot properly harm the petitioner because after the quasi-judicial enquiry begins whatever appears on record of that enquiry can be used against him and not what is at the back of the Custodian's mind and which the petitioner had no chance to meet. 32. For these reasons there is no substance in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. 33. Under the circumstances of the case and as the point was new parties will bear their own costs. 34. SAMVATSAR, J.: I agree. Petition dismissed.