Adequate opportunity to show cause is a condition precedent; failure to hear the proprietor renders a wardship declaration void.

A declaration under Section 8(1)(d)(v) of the U.P. Court of Wards Act, 1912 was held invalid because Section 8(2) required an adequate opportunity of showing cause, and a mere notice seeking a written explanation was insufficient. The proprietor had sought an enquiry and hearing, but no real chance was given to place material or controvert the allegations, so the declaration was made without jurisdiction and quashed. Section 11 did not bar certiorari under Article 226, and the alleged alternative remedy under Section 13 did not prevent judicial review where the declaration had been made without authority. Possession of the property was restored and costs awarded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the declaration under Section 8(1)(d)(v) of the U.P. Court of Wards Act, 1912 was invalid for non-compliance with Section 8(2) because the proprietor was not given an adequate opportunity of showing cause. (ii) Whether the declaration could nevertheless be sustained in view of the bar under Section 11 and the alleged alternative remedy under Section 13 of the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the declaration under Section 8(1)(d)(v) of the U.P. Court of Wards Act, 1912 was invalid for non-compliance with Section 8(2) because the proprietor was not given an adequate opportunity of showing cause.

Analysis: The statutory requirement under Section 8(2) was not satisfied by a mere notice asking for a written explanation. The words "opportunity of showing cause" were held to require an adequate opportunity, including the chance to place material in support of the proprietor's case and to controvert the allegations relied upon against him. The petitioner had asked for an enquiry and a hearing, but no such opportunity was given before the declaration was made. Since compliance with Section 8(2) was a condition precedent to the exercise of power, the declaration was made without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The declaration was invalid and liable to be quashed for want of jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the declaration could nevertheless be sustained in view of the bar under Section 11 and the alleged alternative remedy under Section 13 of the Act.

Analysis: The bar in Section 11 against questioning a declaration in a civil court did not affect the High Court's constitutional power to issue certiorari under Article 226. The existence of an alternative remedy under Section 13 was also not a bar, since that remedy did not cover the challenge made in the petition and did not preclude certiorari where jurisdiction had been exercised without authority.

Conclusion: The declaration was not protected by Section 11 or by the alleged alternative remedy.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded and the declaration was quashed, with restoration of possession of the petitioner's property and costs awarded to him.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute makes notice of grounds and an adequate opportunity of showing cause a condition precedent to the making of a declaration, failure to afford that opportunity renders the declaration without jurisdiction and amenable to certiorari.

---