Court rules Administrator's orders acts of State, not justiciable. State's appeals allowed, suits dismissed.

The Court concluded that the orders made by the Administrator were acts of State and not justiciable in municipal courts. The actions taken by the Administrator were during the period of transition and were part of the process of assumption of sovereignty by the Dominion of India. As such, the respondents' suits were not maintainable, and the appeals by the State of Gujarat were allowed. The Court dismissed the suits with costs, emphasizing that the respondents could not enforce their pre-existing rights against the new sovereign without explicit recognition.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of orders made by the Administrator of Junagadh.
2. Whether the actions of the Administrator constituted an act of State.
3. Justiciability of acts of State in municipal courts.
4. Recognition of grants made by the former Nawab of Junagadh by the new sovereign.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Orders Made by the Administrator of Junagadh:
The primary issue revolves around the validity of the orders made by the Administrator of Junagadh, who resumed grants made by the former Nawab. The respondents challenged these orders, asserting that the Administrator had no authority to cancel the grants. The Court examined the timeline and context of these orders, noting that they were made after the Indian Dominion took over the administration of Junagadh but before its integration with Saurashtra.

2. Whether the Actions of the Administrator Constituted an Act of State:
The Court had to determine whether the actions taken by the Administrator were acts of State, which are not justiciable in municipal courts. The Court referenced the decision in State of Saurashtra v. Memon Haji Ismail Haji ([1960] 1 S.C.R. 537), which held that the assumption of administration by the Dominion of India was an act of State. The Court concluded that the actions of the Administrator, including the resumption of grants, were indeed acts of State as they occurred during the transition period before the full assumption of sovereignty by the Dominion of India.

3. Justiciability of Acts of State in Municipal Courts:
The Court reiterated the principle that acts of State, being exercises of sovereign power against aliens, are not justiciable in municipal courts. This principle was upheld in previous cases, including Cook v. Sprigg ([1899] A.C. 572) and M/s. Dalmia Dadri Cement Co., Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income-tax ([1959] S.C.R. 729). The Court emphasized that the respondents, as subjects of the former Nawab, could not enforce their pre-existing rights against the new sovereign unless those rights were expressly or tacitly recognized by the new sovereign.

4. Recognition of Grants Made by the Former Nawab of Junagadh by the New Sovereign:
The respondents argued that their grants should be recognized by the new sovereign, the Dominion of India. However, the Court found that the Administrator's actions, including the resumption of grants, indicated a clear refusal to recognize these grants. The Court noted that the respondents failed to prove any recognition of their rights by the new sovereign, thereby nullifying their claims in municipal courts.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the orders made by the Administrator were acts of State and not justiciable in municipal courts. The actions taken by the Administrator were during the period of transition and were part of the process of assumption of sovereignty by the Dominion of India. As such, the respondents' suits were not maintainable, and the appeals by the State of Gujarat were allowed. The Court dismissed the suits with costs, emphasizing that the respondents could not enforce their pre-existing rights against the new sovereign without explicit recognition.

---