The declaration of vacancy made by the Government under the proviso to S. 6 (4) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, was conclusive evidence of vacancy and could not be challenged by the petitioner. A writ of certiorari would not lie to quash the requisitioning order even if the decision of the Government was erroneous in law, as the determination of vacancy was not a collateral fact but a part of the very issue which the Government had to inquire into.

Chagla, C. J. :- By this petn. the petnr. challenges an order of requisition made by Govt. dated 22-11-1949, under S. 6 (4) (a), Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. The petn. came before our brother Shah J. and before him the correctness of a decision of our brother Tendolkar J. reported in Jagatchandra v. Province of Bombay, 51 Bom. l. R. 997 : (A. I. R. (37) 1950 Bom. 144) was questioned. Shah J. had several other petns. before him where the same question was likely to arise, and in order that the matter should be finally settled I directed that the petn. should be placed before a bench, and this petition has now come up before this bench to decide the question, whether, when the Govt. makes a declaration under proviso I to S. 6 (4) that certain premises were or had become vacant, it is competent to the petnr. to go behind that declaration.

2. Section 6 of the Act provides that if any premises situated in a particular area are vacant and whenever any such premises are vacant or become vacant by reason of the landlord, the tenant, or the sub-tenant, as the case may be ceasing to occupy the premises or by reason of the release of the premises from requisition or by reason of the premises being newly erected or reconstructed or for any other reason, the landlord of such premises shall give intimation thereof to the Govt. Sub-clause (2) of s. 6 provides the time within which such intimation has to be given; and sub-cl. (3) precludes the landlord from letting out or occupying or permitting to be occupied such premises without the permission of the Govt. and for a period of one month after intimation has been given to Govt. Then sub-cl. (4) provides for the order which may be made by the Provincial Govt., whether intimation of vacancy has been given by the landlord or not, and the order may be made under sub-cl. (a) requisitioning the premises and using or dealing with the premises in such manner as may appear to it to be expedient, and an order may also be made under sub-cl. (b) requiring the landlord to let the premises to specified persons or class of persons or in specified circumstances. The order in question in this petn. has been made under sub-cl. (a). Then we have the proviso which makes it incumbent upon the Provincial Govt. to make such inquiry as it deems fit and make a declaration in the order that the premises were vacant or had become vacant, and such declaration shall he conclusive evidence that the premises were or had so become vacant. Then there is an explanation to this section which amplifies the definition of vacancy given in S. 6 (1), and among other things it provides that there shall be a vacancy when a tenant or subtenant ceases to be in occupation upon termination of his tenancy, eviction, assignment, or transfer in any other manner of his interest in the premises or otherwise, notwithstanding any instrument or occupation by any other person prior to the date when such tenant or sub-tenant ceases to he in occupation. It is clear from the Act that before Govt. can make a requisitioning order under S. 6 (4) (a) two conditions have to be satisfied: The premises must be the premises contemplated by the Act and they must be vacant as defined by S. 6. As to whether premises are vacant or not is not left to the decision or determination of the Ct., hut the Act provides that a declaration made by Govt. that the premises were or had become vacant is conclusive evidence of that fact. A Bench of this Ct. laid down in P. V. Rao v. Girdharlal, 51 Bom. l. R. 418 : (a. i. R. (36) 1949 Bom. 303) that an order of requisition under this section is quasi-judicial order and a writ of certiorari can issue against Govt. when they act in excess of their jurisdiction.

3. The narrow question that we have to decide on this petn. is, what is the effect of the expression used by the Legislature in the proviso to S. 6 (4) that a declaration made by Govt. that the premises were or had become vacant is conclusive evidence. In th