Chagla, C.J.

1. An order of requisition dated December 12, 1950, was challenged by the petitioner, and the learned Judge below Mr. Justice Shah held that the order was bad on the ground that the order did not recite that the requisition was for the purpose of the State or for other public purpose. The order in question is to the following effect :

"WHEREAS, on inquiry it ii found that the premises specified below had become vacant on or after the month of April 1950.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) of Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, the Government of Bombay is pleased to requisition the said premises." Then follows a description of the premises.

2. Now, Mr. Seervais first contention is that the law does not require that the order should state the purpose for which the premises are requisitioned. In order to appreciate this contention it is necessary to look at the language of Section 6 (4) as amended. That section provides:

Whether or not an intimation under Sub-section (1) is given and notwithstanding anything contained in Section 5, the State Government may, by order in writing.

(a) requisition the premise