Judgment

H. J. KANIA, CJ, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from a judgment of the High court at Bombay and it relates to the power of the High court to issue a writ of certiorari against the province of Bombay to quash an order to requisition certain premises. The material facts, as stated in the judgment of the High court, are these. One Abdul Hamid Ismail was, prior to the 29th of January, 1948, the tenant of the first floor of a building known as` Paradise` at Warden Road, Bombay, the landlord of which was one Dr. M. D. Vakil. On the 29/01/1948, Ismail assigned his tenancy to the petitioner and two others, the son and brothers daughters son of the petitioner (the respondent ). All the three assignees were refugees from Sind. On the 4/02/1948, the petitioner went into possession of the flat. On the 26/02/1948, the government of Bombay issued an order requisitioning the flat under section 3 of the Bombay Land Requisition Ordinance (V of 1947) which came into force on the 4/12/1947 On the same day Dr. Vakil was informed that the government had allotted the premises to Mrs. C. Dayaram who was also a refugee from Sind. Further orders were issued authorising an Inspector to take possession of the premises. On the 4/03/1948, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of certiorari and n order under section 45 of the Specific Relief Act. The petition was heard by Mr. Justice Bhagwati who, inter alia, granted the writ against the province of Bombay and the secretary etc. On appeal the appellate court confirmed the order as regards the issue of the writ of certiorari against the appellant, but cancelled the order as regards the other parties. The appellant has come on appeal to this court.

( 2 ) THE learned Attorney-General, on behalf of the appellant, urged the following three points for the courts consideration: (1) (a ). Having regard to the provisions of Ordinance V of 1947, whether the order in question was quasi-judicial or only administrative ? (b) Assuming the order to be of a quasi-judicial nature, whether it was a case of want or excess of jurisdiction, or it was only a case of mistake of law ? (2) Whether a writ of certiorari can be. issued against the appellant, which for its actions under the Ordinance, represents the Crown ? (3 ). Whether the order in question was made for a public purpose ?

( 3 ) S. 3, 4, 10 and 12 of the Ordinance which are material for the discussion in this appeal run as follows: `and Requisition of land. . . . If in the opinion of the Provincial government it is necessary or expedient to do so, the Provincial government may by order in writing requisition any land for any public purpose: Provided that no land used for the purpose of public religious worship or for any purpose which the Provincial government may specify by notification in the Official Gazette shall be requisitioned under this section. 4. Requisition of vacant premises.-- (1) If any premises situate in an area specified by the Provincial government by notification in the Official Gazette are vacant on the date of such notification and whenever any such premises become vacant after such date either by the landlord ceasing to occupy the premises, or by the termination of a tenancy, or by the eviction of a tenant, or by the release of the premises. from requisition or otherwise, the landlord of such premises shall give intimation thereof in the prescribed form to an officer authorised in this behalf by the Provincial Government. (2) Such intimation shall be given by post within one month of the date of such notification in the case of premises which are vacant on such date, and in other cases within seven days of the premises being vacant. (3) A landlord shall not, without the permission of the Provincial government, let the premises before giving such intimation and for a period of one month from the date on which such intimation is given. (4) Whether or not an intimation under subsection (1) is given, and notwithstanding anything contained in