Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. B. Mukharji
SACHINDRA NATH MUKHERJI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST-BENGAL - Respondent
Civil Rule 1809 Of 1957
Decided On : JANUARY 21, 1958
WEST BENGAL PREMISES REQUISITION AND CONTROL (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT, 1947 - Public purpose - Justiciability - Order of requisition - Service - Notice - Delay in moving the court. The order of requisition was challenged on the ground that it was not for a public purpose, was not served on the applicant as required by Section 3(2) of the Act, and did not give the minimum notice of ten days as provided in Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. The court held that the order of requisition was illegal and in contravention of the express provisions of the statute and also beyond the scope of public purpose as laid down in the statute. The court also held that there was no delay in moving the court and that the applicant was entitled to the costs of the Rule.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the owner of premises No. 1/8, Dover Lane, Calcutta, challenged the order of requisition dated 6-10-1956, requisitioning the premises for a public purpose under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947. The petitioner alleged that the order was not for a public purpose, was not served on him as required by Section 3(2) of the Act, and did not give the minimum notice of ten days as provided in Section 4(1)(a) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order of requisition was illegal and in contravention of the express provisions of the statute and also beyond the scope of public purpose as laid down in the statute. The court also held that there was no delay in moving the court and that the applicant was entitled to the costs of the Rule.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of requisition was for a public purpose? 2. Whether the order of requisition was served on the applicant as required by Section 3(2) of the Act? 3. Whether the order of requisition gave the minimum notice of ten days as provided in Section 4(1)(a) of the Act? 4. Whether there was any delay in moving the court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the order of requisition was not for a public purpose, as it was made for the purpose of providing accommodation to a Deputy Minister who was not required to reside in the city of Calcutta and who was already living in a comfortable and well-furnished flat. 2. The court held that the order of requisition was not served on the applicant as required by Section 3(2) of the Act, as there was no affidavit from the Government to controvert the applicant's allegation that he had not been served with the order. 3. The court held that the order of requisition did not give the minimum notice of ten days as provided in Section 4(1)(a) of the Act, as the applicant was required to vacate the premises within 24 hours. 4. The court held that there was no delay in moving the court, as the applicant had tried to accommodate the Government by making applications for vacating the order of requisition and had moved the court immediately after the Government served him with a notice to whitewash the premises.
Final Decision: The court made the Rule absolute and set aside the order of requisition dated 6/10/1956, in Requisition Case No. 91 of 1956 in respect of premises No. 1/8, Dover Lane, Calcutta. The applicant was entitled to the costs of the Rule -- the hearing-fee being assessed at two gold mohurs.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The order of requisition No. 91/56 dated 6-10-1956, requisitioning premises No. 1/8, Dover Lane, Calcutta, is challenged. The requisition was made under Section 3 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947, (West Bengal Act V of 1947 ). The recital of purpose in that order was that the premises were needed for "a public purpose''. The order as produced by, the Senior Government Advocate is directed to be filed in these proceedings. Although that order describes one Sm. Jyotsnabala Chakravarty as the owner of the premises, it is not disputed on any affidavit here that the applicant is the owner.
( 2 ) THE applicant seeks for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from giving effect to the order of requisition dated 6-10-1956, in Requisition Case No. 91 of 1956 and, to cancel the same, and also for a writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings.
( 3 ) THE applicant challenges the order of requisition on four grounds. His first ground is that the purpose for which the premises were requisitioned was not a public purpose within the meaning of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947. His second objection is that even if it be regarded as a requisition under the said Act, the respondents have not complied with the mandatory provision of Section 3 (2) of that Act which provides that an order of requisition shall be served on the landlord and where it relates to premises let out to a tenant, also on such tenant. His third objection is that the minimum notice of ten days as provided in Section 4 (1) (a) of the Act has not been given. His fourth objection is that even the purpose for which the order of requisition was made having expired, the Government illegally and unlawfully continued the requisition instead of derequisitioning the same.
( 4 ) THE facts of this application are stated in the petition. The facts alleged constitute serious allegations against the Government. It is one of the hardest cases of requisition that have ever come up before the Court. The facts and allegations made in the petition have not been denied by the use of any affidavit on behalf of the Government. The Rule was issued on 10-7-1957. On 31-7-1957, the Government was allowed as long as five weeks' time to file affidavits for controverting the allegations in the petition. No affidavits were filed within that time. Since then about six months more have elapsed, and no affidavits have been filed by the Government to deny any of the grave allegations made in the petition. At the date when the matter came up for hearing, the Senior Government Advocate asked for still further time to file the affidavits on behalf of the Government which was opposed by the applicant. I refused further time on the ground that five weeks' time originally given to the Government was ample enough to make an affidavit in answer to the petition and even six months thereafter was still more time to do so.
( 5 ) THE facts as appearing from the petition may be briefly summarised. They tell a story of unparalleled hardship. The petitioner is the owner of premises No. 1/8 Dover Lane, Calcutta. He is an Advocate ordinarily practising in the district courts at Alipore. This is the only house he possesses. He is an old man of over sixty years. The house was constructed in 1938 for his residence and office. He remained in exclusive occupation thereof with the members of his family. One Bireswar Chakra-varty, the father-in-law of the fourth respondent Ajita Ranjan Mukherjee who is the Secretary of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly, Calcutta, was a gurubhai (disciple of a common preceptor) of the applicant and as such picked up friendship and intimacy with the applicant. The material result of that spiritual friendship was that he with his family used to stay with the applicant's family when
AI
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
