Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
4th October, 1955.
S.R. DAS, ACTG. C.J.I., BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR, IMAM AND CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.
State of Bombay, Appellant
Versus
Ali Gulshan, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 229 of 1953.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney- General of India (Mr. Porus A. Mehta and Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocates, with him), for Appellant; Mr. Rajinder Narain, Advocate, for Respondent.
Clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 6 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 194-8, provides inter alia:
"The State Government may, by order in writing, requisition the premises for the purpose of a State or any other public purpose, and may use or deal with the premises for any such purpose in such manner as may appear to it to be expedient."
The Government of Bombay requisitioned certain premises under the Act for "housing a member of the staff of a foreign Consulate." In a petition for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution, it was held that the purpose for which requisition was made was a "public purpose" within the meaning of the Act, but, on appeal, it w •• s held that though the requisition was for a public purpose, the requisition order was invalid as the public purpose must be either a purpose of the Union, or a purpose of the State and in this particular case the accommodation being required for housing a member of a foreign consular staff was a Union purpose, which was outside the scope of the powers of the State.
Held (allowing the appeal1) : (1) Item 33 in the Union Legislative List (List I) refers to "acquisition or requisitioning of property for the purpose of the Union." Item 36 in the State List (List II) relates to "acquisition or requisitioning of property, except for the purpose of Union, subject to the provisions of entry 42 of List III." Item 42 of the Concurrent Legislative List (List III) speaks of "the purpose of the Union or of a State or any other public purpose." Reading the three items together, it is fairly obvious that the categories of "purpose" contemplated are three in number, namely, Union purpose, State purpose, and any other public purpose. Though every State purpose or Union purpose must be a public purpose, it is easy to think of cases where the purpose of the acquisition or requisition is neither the one nor the other but a public purpose. Acquisition of rules for the building of hospitals or educational institutions by private benefactors will be a public purpose though it will not strictly be a State or Union purpose.
When we speak of a State purpose or a Union purpose we think of duties and obligations cast on the State or the Union to do particular thing for the benefit of the public or a section of the public. Cases where the State acquires or requisitions property to facilitate the corning into existence of utilitarian institutions, or schemes having public welfare at heart, will fall within the third category above-mentioned.
Even if it be conceded that the law contemplates only two purposes, namely, State purpose or Union purpose, it is difficult to see how finding
1. From A.I.R. 1953 Bombay 337. accommodation for the staff of a foreign consulate is a Union purpose and not a State purpose. The trade and commerce of the State which appoints a consular with the State in which he is located are his primary concern. The State of Bombay is primarily interested in its own trade and commerce "lnd in the efficient discharge of his duties by the foreign consul functioning within the State. The purpose for which the requisition was made in this case was, therefore, more as a State purpose than as a Union purpose.
(2) An undertaking may have three different faces or aspects, and may serve the purpose of a State, the purpose of the Union and a general public purpose. Even if one may regard the requisition of a room for the accom,modation of a member of a Consulate as one appertaining to a Union purpose, it does not necessarily cease tQ be a State purpose or a general public purpose.
(3) The words "any other purpose" in S. 6 (4) (a) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, should not be read ejusdem generis with "the purpose of the State", for, if they have been used only to mean a State purpose, they would become mere surplusage. Courts should lean against such a construction as far as possible.
Apart from the fact that the rule of ejusdem generis must be confined within narrow limits, and general or comprehensive words should receive their full and natural meaning unless they are clearly restrictive in their intendment, it is requisite that there must be a distinct genus, which must comprise more than one species, before the rule can be applied. - Schedule VII-List I, Item 33, List II, Item 36, List III, Item 42-Meaning of "purpose"-Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, S. 6 (4) (a)-"Purpose of a State or any other public purpose."
Judgement
CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR, J. : Was the Government of Bombay entitled under cl.(a) of sub-s. (4) of S. 6 Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 (Act 23 of 1948) to requisition, as for a public purpose, certain premises for "housing a member of the staff of a foreign Consulate?", is the question we have to consider in this appeal, which has arisen out of a writ petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution by the respondent in the Bombay High Court to restrain the State of Bombay from taking such action.
2. On the hearing of the petition before Tendolkar, J. the State succeeded on the ground that the purpose for which the requisition was made was a "public purpose" within the meaning of the Act. But, on appeal, it was held that though the requisition was for a public purpose, the requisition order was invalid, as the public purpose must be either a purpose of the Union, or a purpose of the State and in this particular case the accommodation being required for housing a member of a foreign Consular staff was a Union purpose, which was outside the scope of the powers of the State.
3. Clause (a) of sub-s, (4) of S. 6, omitting portions unnecessary for our present purposes, runs in these terms:
"The State Government may, by order in writing, requisition the premises for the purpose of a state or any other public purpose, and may use or deal with the premises for any such purpose in such manner as may appear to it to be expedient."
4. The validity of the Act is not questioned as unconstitutional or us beyond the scope of the legislative competence of the State. As the premises were required for housing a member of the staff of a Consulate, there can be no doubt that it was wanted for a public purpose.
5. The ultimate source of authority to requisition or acquire property is to be found in Art. 31 of the Constitution. The requisition or acquisition must be for a public purpose and there must be compensation. This Article applies with equal force to Union legislation and State legislation. Items 33 and 36 of List I and List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution empowers respectively Parliament and the State Legislatures to enact laws with respect to them.
6. The reasoning by which the learned appellate Judges of the Bombay High Court reached their conclusion is shortly this. There can be no public purpose, which is not a purpose of the Union or a purpose of the State. There are only these two categories to consider under the statute, as the words "any other purpose" in the particular context should be read ejusdem generis with "the purpose of the state". The provision of accommodation for a member of the foreign consulate staff is a "purpose of the Union" and not a "purpose of the State".
7. We are unable to uphold this view as regards both the standpoints. Item 33 in the Union Legislative List (List I) refers to "acquisition or requisitioning of property for the purposes of the union." Item 36 in the State List (List II) relates to "acquisition or requisitioning of property, except for the purposes of the Union, subject to the provisions of entry 42 of List III." Item 42 of the Concurrent Legislative List (List Ill) speaks of "the purpose of the Union or of a State or any other public purpose".
Reading the three items together, it is fairly obvious that the categories of "purpose" contemplated are three in number, namely, Union purpose, State purpose, and any other public purpose. Though every State purpose or Union purpose must be a public purpose, it is easy to think of cases where the purpose of the acquisition or requisition is neither the one nor the other but a public purpose. Acquisition of sites for the building of hospitals or educational . institutions by private benefactors will be a public purpose, though it will not strictly be a State or Union purpose.
When we speak of a State purpose or a Union purpose, we think of duties & obligations cast on the State or the Union to do particular thing for the benefit of the pu
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
