Ministerial dictation and absence of notice make allotment cancellation without jurisdiction and invalid under natural justice.

Cancellation of allotments under the statutory scheme had to be exercised only by the competent authority on the basis of the Act, the Rules and relevant facts, and not under ministerial dictation or executive advice. A cancellation made by the Minister, or merely signed by the Additional Custodian without independent statutory judgment, was outside jurisdiction and could not stand. The text also states that notice and a hearing were required before adverse cancellation action, because the statutory provisions and natural justice applied. A later departmental inquiry or subsequent representation could not cure the absence of prior notice and hearing. The impugned cancellation was therefore treated as invalid and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the cancellation of the appellants' allotments was without jurisdiction because it was in substance the Minister's order and not a lawful order of the Additional Custodian under the Act and the Rules; (ii) Whether the cancellation was invalid for want of notice and hearing before the allotments were taken away.

Issue (i): Whether the cancellation of the appellants' allotments was without jurisdiction because it was in substance the Minister's order and not a lawful order of the Additional Custodian under the Act and the Rules.

Analysis: The power to cancel allotments under the statutory scheme had to be exercised only within the limits of the Act and Rule 14. The Custodian, whether acting under original, revisional, or review powers, was required to decide on the basis of the facts, the evidence, and the governing rules, and not on ministerial advice, policy, or executive dictation. A cancellation made by the Minister, who had no statutory power to cancel the allotment, was therefore outside jurisdiction. Even on the assumption that the Additional Custodian merely signed the Minister's note, there was no lawful exercise of independent statutory power.

Conclusion: The cancellation was without jurisdiction and could not stand.

Issue (ii): Whether the cancellation was invalid for want of notice and hearing before the allotments were taken away.

Analysis: The statutory provisions governing cancellation and review contemplated notice to the affected parties, and the principles of natural justice required a hearing before adverse action was taken. The appellants were not given notice before the cancellation was made. A later departmental inquiry or subsequent representation could not cure the absence of prior notice and hearing required by law.

Conclusion: The cancellation was invalid for breach of the requirement of notice and hearing.

Final Conclusion: The impugned cancellation order could not be sustained in law and was quashed, leaving the appellants entitled to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute requires cancellation of allotment to be made by the competent authority on judicial or quasi-judicial considerations, the authority cannot act under ministerial dictation, and adverse action taken without prior notice and hearing is invalid.

---