Judgement ORDER : Since the questions at issue in the writ petitions are virtually identical, they can be disposed of by a common order. 2. Each of the petitioners held a large block of shares in the Prithvi Insurance Co. Ltd. That holding was in excess of the limit imposed by S. 6-A of the Insurance Act of 1938. Section 6-A was added to the Insurance Act of 1938 by the Amending Act 47 of 1950 which came into force on 1st June, 1950. The rules framed, to give effect to the provisions of S. 6-A among others, came into force later, on 18th August, 1950. Section 6-A (7) imposed a liability on a shareholder in an Insurance Company not to hold shares in excess of ten per cent, and a further liability that anything in excess should be disposed of by the share-holder within three years from 1st June, 1950 or within a further period not exceeding two years as may be allowed to him by the Central Government. Under S. 6-A (8), after the expiry, of the period referred to in S. 6-A (7), the excess over ten per cent, vested in the Administrator-General of the State. The obligation of the Administrator-General was to dispose of the shares that vested in him and the proceeds thereof in such manner as may be prescribed. Rule 17-B of the rules, which came into force on 18th August, 1950 ran . "As soon as the Administrator-General of a State has taken charge of any shares of a public company vesting in him under sub-s. (8) of S. 6-A of the Act, he shall furnish full details of the shares to the Controller and he shall try, as soon as may be, to sell the shares, whether as a whole or in part or whether in the open market or by private sale, at a price not lower than the price fixed by the Controller who may vary the price fixed from time to time. The proceeds shall be handed over to such person as, in the opinion of the Administrator-General, is by law entitled thereto." The three years period prescribed by S. 6-A (7) expired on 1st June, 1953, but the Central Government extended the time upto 31st December, 1953; There was no further extension ordered by the Central Government under S. 6-A (7). 3. 3. The Prithvi Insurance Company applied to the Central Government on 5th June, 1953, under the provisions of S. 6-C of the Act, to sanction a scheme for mutualisation. That was sanctioned on 15th March, 1954, to come into force on 30th June, 1954. On that date the shares of every one of the share-holders in the Prithvi Insurance Company including the petitioners stood extinguished, and all that the quondam share-holders were entitled to was to be paid out of a separate trust fund. Subsequently on 11th February, 1956 new trustees were appointed for this trust fund, an 1 these trustees had to pay the share-holders whatever they were entitled to under the sanctioned scheme. 4. The period fixed under S. 6-A (7), it should be remembered, expired on 31st December, 1953. The Administrator-General called on the petitioners on 11th February, 1954 to surrender the shares they held in excess of the statutory limit of ten per cent. 5. Even before that, the company applied to the Central Government on 8th January, 1954 to grant a further extension of time beyond 31st December, 1953, in view of the pendency of the proceedings under S. 6-C of the Act. On 8th March, 1954 the Government of India informed the company to move the Administrator-General to enable the petitioners to get the payments they were entitled to under the scheme. On 13-3-1954 the company informed the Administrator-General that steps would be taken in consultation with the Advocate-General to give effect to the instructions conveyed by the Government. On 21st April, 1954 the Administrator-General informed the petitioners that he was unable to comply with their request. 6. The petitioners applied under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ to restrain the Administrator-General from interfering with the right of the petitioners to receive the money due to them under the sanctioned scheme. 7. Act 31 of 1956 was published on 19th June, 1956. Section 34 of Act 31 of 1956 directed . 7. Act 31 of 1956 was published on 19th June, 1956. Section 34 of Act 31 of 1956 directed . "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Insurance Act, all shares which have vested in the Administrator-General of any State under sub-s. (8) of S. 6-A of that Act and which have not been disposed of in accordance with the provisions of that sub-section before the appointed day, shall, on payment of the amount of expenditure, if any, incurred by the Administrator-General in relation to such shares by the persons who would have been entitled to those shares if the said sub-section had not been enacted, revest in such persons". It was on the basis of the rights of the petitioners declared by S. 34 of Act 31 of 1956 that the petitioners preferred C. M. P. No. 1234 of 1957. The Administrator-General claimed that under the provisions of S. 34 a sum of Rs. 699 was payable to him by the petitioners in W. P. No. 363 of 1954. 8. The learned Advocate-General, who appeared for the petitioners, challenged the consti- tutional validity of sub-ss. (7) and (8) of S. 6-A of the Insurance Act as well as that of R. 17-B. Notice was issued to the Attorney-General of India. It may not however be necessary to investigate the question raised, because the relief that the petitioners want can be granted to them without such an investigation. 9. In the present case, the shares held by the petitioner were themselves extinguished on 30th June, 1954. The only right the petitioners, as quondam share-holders, are entitled to is to receive money from the trustees of the trust fund computed on the basis of the shares they held. Even if the shares themselves had not been so extinguished, they would have revested in the original share-holders under S. 34 of Act 31 of 1958, as admittedly the shares held by the petitioners in excess of the statutory ten per cent, were not disposed of by the Administrator-General before Act 31 of 1956 came into force. In any event, the petitioners cannot be denied the right to receive the amounts they are entitled to under the sanctioned scheme from the trustees. In any event, the petitioners cannot be denied the right to receive the amounts they are entitled to under the sanctioned scheme from the trustees. 10.The amount claimed by the Administrator-General did not, in my opinion, fall within the scope of S. 34 of Act 31 of 1956, quite independent of the fact that the shares were extinguished on 30th June, 1956. 11. It is a matter for regret that the Administrator-General persisted in opposing the claim of the petitioners subsequent to 30th June, 1954 and even after Act 31 of 1956 came into force. It was only on 5th April, 1957, when the matter came up finally before me, that the learned counsel for the Administrator-General represented that relief could be granted to the petitioners, and that the Administrator-General was not seeking an adjudication of the Constitutional validity of sub-ss. (7) and (8) of S. 6-A and R. 17-B. 12.There will be a direction in each of the writ petitions, W. P. Nos. 363 and 364 of 1954, that the Administrator-General shall not interfere with the petitioners lights in relation to the shares that the petitioners originally held in the Prithvi Insurance Company. No further orders are necessary in C. M. P. No. 1234 of 1957. No order as to costs. Order accordingly.