9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the requisition order under Section 5 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. 2. Determination of whether the requisition was for a "public purpose." Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Requisition Order under Section 5 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948: The Government of the State of Bombay issued an order dated 12th May 1952, requisitioning premises under Section 5 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, for housing an officer of the State Road Transport Corporation. The respondent challenged this order by filing a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Bombay High Court. The High Court set aside the impugned order, ruling that the requisition was not for a public purpose. The appellant appealed this decision, and the case was brought before the Supreme Court by special leave. The Supreme Court considered the purpose for which the Corporation was established, its composition, the extent of control exercised by the State Government over it, and its activities. The Court noted that the Corporation is a public utility concern and is governed by the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. The Court concluded that if the premises had been requisitioned for the Corporation, it would have been for a public purpose. However, the respondent contended that the requisition was for the convenience of an individual employee, which could not be considered a public purpose. 2. Determination of Whether the Requisition was for a "Public Purpose": The principal ground for setting aside the impugned order was that the requisition was not for a public purpose. The Attorney-General argued that the requisition was indeed for a public purpose, citing provisions from the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, and previous judicial decisions. The Court examined the definition of "public purpose," referencing the Privy Council's decision in Hamabai Framjee Petit v. Secretary of State for India in Council, and the Supreme Court's decisions in The State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji and Another, and The State of Bombay v. Ali Gulshan. The Court noted that the expression "public purpose" cannot be precisely defined and must be determined based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court emphasized that the government is the best judge of whether a public purpose is served by issuing a requisition order, but the courts have the jurisdiction and duty to determine the matter when questioned. The Court found that the requisition order did not name any individual, implying that the premises were at the disposal of the Corporation to house one of its officers. The Court also noted that providing living accommodation for its employees is a statutory activity of the Corporation under Section 19(1)(c) of the Act. The Court concluded that the requisitioning or acquisition of property to ensure the efficient functioning of the Corporation must be regarded as for a public purpose. The Court held that the general interest of the community is directly and vitally concerned with the efficient functioning of the Corporation, and thus the impugned order was validly passed under the Requisition Act. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the decision of the High Court. The Court ruled that the requisition order was validly passed under the Requisition Act as it served a public purpose. The appellant was directed to pay the respondent's costs in the Supreme Court, while each party would bear its own costs in the High Court.
|
