The existence of a public purpose for requisition under Section 3 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Requisition (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947, is not justiciable and depends solely on the subjective satisfaction of the Provincial Government.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by Pandit Srinivas Kedwal against a judgment of Bose J. , dated the 7th of May, 1951, dismissing an application filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing an order of requisition dated the 31st of October, 1950, made by the Assistant Secretary, Government of West Bengal, under Section 3 (1) of the West Bengal Requisition (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 (West Bengal Act V of 1947), hereinafter called the Act in respect of three rooms on the first floor in the south west wing of Premises No. 11, Vivekananda Road in the city of Calcutta.

( 2 ) ONE Bhajanlal Kedwal died on the 9th of April, 1942, leaving him surviving his widow Bam Devi and three sons, Srinivas, the appellant, Bhuramull and Babulal.

( 3 ) ON Bhajanlal's death the said premises No. 11, Vivekananda Road vested in the appellant Srinivas and his two brothers, Bhuramal and Babulal.

( 4 ) ON the 18th of November, 1947, an order of requisition was made by the 1st Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, under the provisions of West Bengal Premises Requisition and Evicting Ordinance, 1947, in regard to the said three rooms in the west wing of the first floor of the aforesaid premises. Shortly thereafter on the 11th of December, 1947, another order was made by the 1st Land Acquisition Collector in regard to the said rooms under the said Ordinance. The appellant's allegation is that after the said order of requisition one Santosh Chand Sucheti who according to the appellant is an employee of Hindusthan Motor Works Limited, was put in possession of the requisitioned premises. The appellant moved the Board of Revenue against the said order of requisition. On the 23rd of February, 1948, the said orders of requisition were set aside by the Board of Revenue inter alia on the ground that it was suspected that the said order of requisition was obtained by misrepresentation. On the 5th of March, 1948, the appellant wrote a letter to the Government for possession of the requisitioned premises. This was followed by another letter dated the 2lst of June, 1948, written by Messrs. B. M. Bagaria, Solicitors, purporting to act on behalf of the appellant. On the 30th of June, 1948, the 1st Land Acquisition Collector wrote to Messrs. B. M. Bagaria to the effect that a reference had been made to the Government in this behalf. On the 10th of August. 1948, another letter was written by the 1st Land Acquisition Collector to the appellant for fixation of rent of the requisitioned premises. This was followed by another letter dated the 19th of August, 1948, proposing an amicable settlement of the compensation to be paid for the requisitioned premises. On the 20th September, 1948, the appellant issued a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the State Government claiming restoration of possession of the requisitioned premises and damages. On the 23rd of November, 1948, a suit being Suit No. 1336 of 1948 was filed by the appellant's brothers for partition of certain properties including the said premises No. 11, Vivekananda Road. On the 30th of November, 1948, the Land Acquisition Collector wrote a letter to the appellant informing him that compensation for the requisitioned premises has been fixed at Rs. 65/- per month. In the said partition suit an official receiver was appointed on the 3rd of December, 1948. On the 10th of June, 1949, the 1st Land Acquisition Collector wrote to the appellant's solicitor for a discussion as regards the restoration of possession of the requisitioned premises. This was followed by another letter dated the 30th of November, 1949, for settling an estimate of costs to be incurred for the filing of a suit for recovery of possession of the requisitioned premises. It appears that thereafter on account of disputes between the brothers no steps were taken for filing a suit for recovery of possession of the requisitioned premises. On the 2