Research › Browse › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

1962 DIGILAW 61 (GAU)

Khongbantabam Pabung v. Union of India

1962-07-11

T.N.R.TIRUMALPAD

body1962
ORDER :- These two applications can be disposed of together. In both the writ applications, the respective petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents, namely, Union of India. The Chief Commissioner of Manipur and the E. A. C. (Claims) Manipur, to show cause why they should not be called upon to perform their statutory duties and obligations under Rule 96 of the Defence of India Rules. It is not necessary to deal with the claims made by the respective petitioners in detail. In Writ Application No. 14 of 1956, the claim is for a sum of Rs. 53,750/- in respect of certain timbers belonging to the petitioner which the Allied Military Forces were said to have demolished for the efficient prosecution of the War under Rule 78 of the Defence of India Rules. The date or year of the claim has not been mentioned. In writ application No. 16 of 1956, the claim again is for certain timbers valued at Rs. 31,590/-, which the petitioner therein was ordered to leave in his house in April, 1944 and which were said to have been demolished by the Allied Military Force for the efficient prosecution of the War under Rule 78 of the Defence of India Rules. It is stated in both, the petitions that the War ended on 1-4-1946 and that as per Section 1(4), the Defence of India Act expired on 1-10-1946, but that before the expiry of the Act, Ordinance 12 of 1946 was promulgated on 30-3-1946, whereby the Defence of India Act and Rules were kept alive till 5-1-1948 when Act II of 1948 was passed repealing the Act and Rules and the Ordinance, but providing that the repeal shall not affect the validity of or any right or liability or obligation already granted under the Defence of India Act or Rules. The petitioners were said to nave filed their claims to the then Government of Manipur and subsequent to the merger of Manipur with Indian Union to the Chief Commissioner of Manipur, but they were not awarded any compensation. Hence, they have come forward with the present writ application to direct them to perform their statutory duties and obligations under Rule 96 of he Defence of India Rules. 2. The respondents in their counter statement denied that there was any demolition of the timbers of the petitioners by Allied Military Forces. Hence, they have come forward with the present writ application to direct them to perform their statutory duties and obligations under Rule 96 of he Defence of India Rules. 2. The respondents in their counter statement denied that there was any demolition of the timbers of the petitioners by Allied Military Forces. They further said that even if the demolition took place, the petitioners have no right to make any claims as the Defence of India Act and the Rules framed thereunder though extended to the then State of Manipur by Darbar Resolution No. 22 dated 15-5-1940, were not kept alive after 1-10-1946 to save the rights, liability and obligations thereunder. After the Indian Independence Act, 1947 came into force on 15-8-1947, the State of Manipur, became an independent and sovereign State and the said State did not recognise the claims of the petitioners. After the integration of Manipur with the Union of India, the liabilities in general or the claims of the petitioners in particular were not transferred to the Union of India. Hence, the petitioners cannot make any such claims which have arisen before the Indian Constitution came into force, by means of a Writ Application under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The claims made by both the petitioners are under Rule 96 of the Defence of India Rules. The Supreme Court has now decided in Union of India v. Kh. Atolchow Singh Imphal, Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1958, D/- 25-4-1961 (SC) that the Defence of India Act and Rules did not apply to anything done by the Allied Military Forces in Manipur. Hence, the claims made by the petitioners under the said Act and Rules have to be negatived. It is seen that by Darbar Resolution No. 22 dated 15-5-1940, the Defence of India Act and Rules with certain modifications were extended to Manipur. But Section 1(4) of the Defence of India Act as extended to Manipur, shows that it ceased to be in force from 1-10-1946. Though, the Act and Rules were further extended by Ordinance No. 12 of 1946 and by Act II of 1948, in other parts in India, the then State of Manipur which was not then part of India did not extend the operation of the Act and Rules beyond 1-10-1946. Thus, whatever claims the petitioners had against the then State of Manipur, came to an end on 1-10-1946. Thus, whatever claims the petitioners had against the then State of Manipur, came to an end on 1-10-1946. The State of Manipur subsequently became independent by the Indian Independence Act, 1947. Subsequently, in October, 1949, Manipur merged with the Indian Union. It cannot be said that the claims of the petitioners, if any, which had already become barred on 1-10-1946 could be enforced either against the Union Territory of Manipur or against the Union of India, after the merger of Manipur with the Union of India. Hence, the petitioners have no valid claims which they can enforce-against the respondents. On this ground both the writ applications have got to be dismissed. 4. It is, therefore, ordered that both the writ applications will be dismissed with the costs of the respondents. Advocates fee Rs. 100/- one set in each of the petitions. Applications dismissed.