Certiorari and appellate standing under evacuee law turn on jurisdiction, person aggrieved status, and appealability of section 7 orders.

Certiorari does not lie merely because an appellate authority may have decided competence or locus standi incorrectly, if it was otherwise vested with jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The text explains that questions such as whether an appeal is properly filed and whether an informant is a person aggrieved are for the appellate authority to determine within its jurisdiction, and a wrong decision on those matters does not make the order a nullity. It also states that a person who participated in the enquiry and whose claim was rejected has standing to appeal, and that an order refusing to declare evacuee status remains appealable where the statute allows appeals from orders under the relevant provision.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a writ of certiorari could lie to quash the appellate authority's order on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction; (ii) whether the informant had locus standi as a person aggrieved to prefer an appeal under the Ordinance; (iii) whether an appeal could be treated as one from the earlier order under section 7 and whether an order refusing to declare a person evacuee was appealable.

Issue (i): whether a writ of certiorari could lie to quash the appellate authority's order on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction.

Analysis: Certiorari is available only where the inferior authority acts without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or in violation of natural justice. Once the appellate authority is vested with jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, questions such as whether the appeal is competent, whether the appeal is in proper form, and whether a party has locus standi are matters for the appellate authority itself to decide. A wrong decision on such matters does not, by itself, make the order a nullity.

Conclusion: The challenge by certiorari failed, and the order was not liable to be quashed on the ground of want of jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): whether the informant had locus standi as a person aggrieved to prefer an appeal under the Ordinance.

Analysis: The scheme of the Ordinance and the rules allowed persons interested in the enquiry or in the property to participate and contest the claim. The informant had intervened, filed a reply, adduced evidence, and his contention that the property was evacuee property had been negatived. A person whose contention is rejected in proceedings in which he is entitled to be heard is a person aggrieved for the purpose of appeal.

Conclusion: The informant was a person aggrieved and had locus standi to file the appeal.

Issue (iii): whether the appeal could be treated as one from the earlier order under section 7 and whether an order refusing to declare a person evacuee was appealable.

Analysis: The memorandum of appeal, read as a whole, challenged the substantive conclusion reached in the enquiry under section 7, and the mistaken description of the date of the order did not deprive the appeal of its true character. Section 24 conferred a right of appeal against orders made under section 7 generally, not merely against orders declaring property evacuee property. An adjudication that a person is not an evacuee is still an order under section 7 and is appealable.

Conclusion: The appeal was competent, was rightly treated as directed against the order under section 7, and the refusal to declare evacuee status was appealable.

Final Conclusion: The appellate authority's jurisdiction to entertain and decide the appeal was upheld, the writ petition failed, and the appeal before the Court was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute confers appellate power in broad terms, the appellate authority may decide preliminary questions of competence and locus standi, and certiorari does not lie merely because that authority may have decided those questions wrongly within its jurisdiction; an order rejecting a claim in proceedings under the statute is an appealable order if the statute provides an appeal against orders made under that provision.

---