P L D 1964 Supreme Court 793 (PLP)

CORNELIUS, C. J. The petitioner gave an information alleging irregular transfer of an evacuee house. After preliminary investigation, the Director of Enforcement referred the case to the Settlement Commissioner, who after further enquiry, including examination of the informant, held that there was no irregularity in the transfer. Thereupon, the informant moved a writ in the High Court challenging the finding, and praying that the Settlement Commissioner be ordered to transfer the house to her. The writ was refused, on the ground that there was no case for interference in the writ jurisdiction. An appeal under the Letters Patent was dismissed in limine. The informant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court. The writ appears to have been moved in the belief (1) that the informant, like a complainant in a criminal case has an interest in the end result, and therefore independent locus standi to pursue the proceeding and (2) that in the event of the infor mation leading to a positive result, the informant has a vested interest in the property. Neither of these suppositions has the least support in law. If the Settlement Authorities acting on a refer ence by the Enforcement Staff hold the transfer to be irregular, the transferee having a vested right in the property may move by way of appeal, and, if a writ be competent, in the High Court. But the informant has no vested right in the property, and certainly would have no right of appeal or revision under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 to have the decision re-considered or reversed, if it went in favour of the trans fer being regular. At the most, should there have been no enquiry, or if the proceedings were merely colourable, with no visible effort to investigate the allegation of irregularity, certiorari may perhaps be available to oblige the authorities to act in accordance with the law. Moreover, the Settlement Authorities are not bound in law to transfer the property to the informant, even if the transfer be found to be irregular. The law is expressed in permissive terms the authority may transfer the house,' in whole or in part, to the informer, in such a case, and we entertain no doubt that the decision might take into account other factors besides that of the information proving to be true. The informer may be of a status totally disproportionate to the property in, question, so that it would be wholly unreasonable to transfer the property to him. He may be a person of questionable character, whose name is on the police registers, or even a convicted criminal, and to transfer public property to him may be clearly inappropriate. He may have obtained his information by infamous means. A variety of circumstances can be imagined which would weigh with the authorities in making a decision involving the transfer of property vested in the Central Government. There being no conceivable vested interest in the informant, the relief by writ was clearly inadmissible. We dismiss this petition. A. H. Petition dismissed.