Evacuee property transfer in substance, review power and civil court challenge remain available against void administrative orders.

A transfer styled as a management arrangement was examined on its substance: where a running evacuee hotel business, licence and assets were handed over for consideration, and the required prior approval for sale was absent, the order could not be sustained under Section 12A and was treated as invalid. The commentary also states that review proceedings already pending were preserved by the General Clauses Act, that "review" was not confined to the narrow CPC sense, and that a successor Custodian could set aside an illegal predecessor's order. It further notes that civil court scrutiny remains available where administrative orders are made without jurisdiction, despite statutory finality clauses.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order made under Section 12A of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 was valid. (ii) Whether the Custodian could review the predecessor's order and whether such review could be invoked by an aggrieved person in pending proceedings. (iii) Whether the civil court could question the Custodian's and Custodian General's orders despite the finality clauses in the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the order made under Section 12A of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 was valid.

Analysis: The correspondence and admissions showed that what was handed over was the management and ownership of a running hotel business, together with its licence and assets, for consideration. The Custodian had not obtained the previous approval required for sale of an evacuee business under Section 10(2)(o), and the order could not be sustained as a mere transfer retaining control. Section 12A also applied only where leasehold rights had vested in the Custodian and a lease had in fact been granted, which was not established.

Conclusion: The order under Section 12A was invalid and without authority.

Issue (ii): Whether the Custodian could review the predecessor's order and whether such review could be invoked by an aggrieved person in pending proceedings.

Analysis: The amendment did not contain a saving provision excluding pending review matters, so Section 6 of the General Clauses Act preserved the pending proceeding. The word "review" was construed broadly in the statutory context and was not confined to the narrow limits of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The power was not restricted to suo motu action, and the word "own" did not prevent a successor from dealing with an order where the original order was illegal and liable to be set aside.

Conclusion: The review was maintainable and the Custodian was competent to set aside the earlier invalid order.

Issue (iii): Whether the civil court could question the Custodian's and Custodian General's orders despite the finality clauses in the Act.

Analysis: Orders made without jurisdiction or which are nullities remain open to challenge in a civil court notwithstanding statutory clauses giving finality to administrative orders. Finality does not protect acts done wholly outside jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The civil suit was maintainable to challenge the impugned orders.

Final Conclusion: The impugned decree was unsustainable, the plaintiff's suit failed, and the appeal succeeded with costs left to be borne by the parties themselves.

Ratio Decidendi: An evacuee property's transfer styled as a management arrangement will be treated according to its substance, and where the Custodian acts beyond the statutory limits or without the required approval, the resulting order is void and may be reviewed and challenged notwithstanding finality clauses.

---