Act of State and claims procedure: no enforceable right to a further oral hearing before governmental rejection.

A claim arising from the merger-era claims procedure remained within the sphere of act of State until the Government expressly or impliedly accepted it, because the process was an enquiry for the new sovereign authority and not a municipal adjudication creating an enforceable civil right. The claimant therefore had no vested right to insist on acceptance before rejection. The Court further held that, although the claimant had been heard by the Claims Officer and given an opportunity to place material before the Board of Revenue, the process was not a judicial trial and did not require a further viva voce hearing before the Government rejected the report. The appeals failed and the rejection of the claims was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of claims arising against the former State and its Ruler, under the claims procedure introduced after merger, was an act of State until the Government accepted the claim, and whether the claimant was entitled to a further oral hearing before the Government rejected the report of the Claims Officer.

Analysis: The claims procedure under the relevant order was held to be an enquiry undertaken for the benefit of the new sovereign authority and not a municipal adjudication creating an enforceable civil right against the State. Until the Government expressly or impliedly accepted a claim, the sovereign right to reject it remained open and the act of State had not come to an end. The Court further held that, although the claimant had been heard by the Claims Officer and was asked to place materials before the Board of Revenue, the enquiry was not a judicial trial and the law did not compel a further viva voce hearing before rejection.

Conclusion: The appeals failed. The rejection of the claims was upheld and no writ relief was warranted.

Final Conclusion: A claim against the former sovereign authority remained within the sphere of act of State until accepted by the Government, and the claimant had no enforceable right to insist on a further oral hearing before rejection of the claim.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Government is only investigating and not yet accepting a claim arising out of a former sovereign regime, the matter remains an act of State and no enforceable municipal right to insist on a further hearing arises unless the governing law expressly provides it.

---