Natural justice and defective notice invalidated the vesting order, while evacuee property legislation itself was upheld.

Evacuee property legislation was upheld as within legislative competence and constitutionally valid: the power to declare property evacuee property was treated as incidental to the scheme for custody, management and administration, the validating provision was read retrospectively, and the restrictions on ownership and disposal were not treated as unconstitutional. However, the Custodian's notice and vesting order affecting the petitioner's shares failed to disclose the statutory grounds with sufficient particularity and did not afford an effective hearing, so the statutory conditions precedent and natural justice were breached. The exclusionary clause did not bar constitutional review where want of jurisdiction or procedural illegality was shown, and the impugned action was quashed to that extent.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the evacuee property legislation and the impugned provisions were within legislative competence and consistent with the constitutional guarantees relating to property and freedom to hold and dispose of property; and (ii) whether the Custodian's notice and consequent order vesting the first petitioner's shares were vitiated for want of proper notice and breach of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether the legislation was within legislative competence and constitutionally valid.

Analysis: The statutory scheme was directed to the custody, management and administration of evacuee property, and the power to declare property evacuee property was treated as incidental to that subject. The provision relied upon to validate earlier action was construed as giving retrospective effect to the later Act, so that earlier acts were to be judged by the later validating enactment. On the constitutional challenge, the legislation was held to fall within the protection of Article 31 in relation to taking possession of evacuee property, while the restrictions on ownership and disposal were regarded as ancillary to the legislative object and not as unreasonable restrictions. The broad exclusionary clauses were not read as ousting the High Court's constitutional writ jurisdiction where want of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice was shown.

Conclusion: The legislation was held to be within legislative competence and not unconstitutional on the grounds urged.

Issue (ii): Whether the Custodian's notice and order vesting the first petitioner's shares were invalid for want of proper notice and breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The notice was required to disclose the grounds on which the property was sought to be declared evacuee property and to precede an inquiry affording a real opportunity of hearing. The notice issued to the shareholders did not state the grounds with sufficient particularity and did not comply with the statutory safeguards. In addition, the shareholders were not effectively heard before the order was made, and the defect went to jurisdiction because the statutory conditions precedent had not been satisfied. The existence of an alternative appellate remedy did not prevent the High Court from granting certiorari where the order was made in violation of natural justice.

Conclusion: The notification and order were invalid to the extent that they affected the first petitioner's shares.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the legislation failed, but the petitioner succeeded on the limited ground that the Custodian's action against his shares was made without compliance with the mandatory statutory notice requirements and natural justice, warranting partial quashing of the impugned notification and order.

Ratio Decidendi: An exclusionary or finality clause does not bar constitutional review where the statutory authority acts without jurisdiction or in breach of mandatory procedural safeguards, and a notice that fails to disclose the grounds required by the statute cannot sustain an order affecting civil rights.

---