The judgment established the wide interpretation of 'public purpose' and the necessity of land acquisition for a public company serving a public purpose. It also clarified the non-discriminatory nature of the Land Acquisition Act and its compliance with fundamental rights.

1. 'The Premier Tyres Limited' is a public limited Company incorporated in India, having its registered office in Bombay and the factory for the manufacture of tyres and other rubber goods at Kalamassery on land acquired by the State of Kerala and given to it in 1960. It has commenced production of tyres on May 27,1962. For expansion of the factory, the Company needs more land to put up additional buildings and structures and the only land found suitable is the petitioners' land adjoining its premises. Attempts to purchase the same by direct negotiations with the 1st petitioner, who is the mother of the other petitioners having failed, it moved the State Government for compulsory acquisition thereof under the Travancore Land Acquisition Act that was in force in the area concerned. Notification under S.4(1) of the Act has been published in the Gazette dated October 17,1961; and declaration, under S.6(1) in the Gazette dated April 3, 1962. The latter, after declaring that the land specified therein, 4.78 acres in extent, is "needed for a public purpose to wit, for the use of Messrs. Premier Tyres Limited" and empowering the 3rd respondent. Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Ernakulam, to perform the functions of a Collector under the Act, directed possession of the, land to be taken on the expiry of 15 days from the date of publication of the notice under S.9(1) of the Act as the need was urgent. A copy of that declaration is Ext. P-5 here. On May 30, 1962 notices under S.9(1) of the Act were issued to the petitioners, being persons interested, in the land, calling them to state their claims to compensation for the land on or before June 20, 1962. Those notices are Exts. P-9 to P-4 here. It is now admitted that the petitioners have filed their statements of claim on June 19, 1962. Before that, on June 18, 1962, they have filed this O.P. to quash Exts. P-1 to P-5 by a writ of certiorari and to restrain the respondents by a writ of mandamus from proceeding with the acquisition of the land. Respondents 1 to 3 are the State of Kerala, the Secretary to the Government of Kerala, Industries Department, and the Deputy Collector (L.A.), Ernakulam. The 4th respondent is the Premier Tyres Limited. After hearing counsel for the petitioners, a Rule nisi has been issued by Vaidialingam, J., on June 25,1962.

2. According to the petitioners the price offered by the 4th respondent for the land was too low, the move for the acquisition of the land is a colourable exercise of the power of the State for a private purpose, the allegation of urgency lacks all good faith, and the Travancore Land Acquisition Act is discriminatory and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens under Art.19(1)(f) and 31(2) of the Constitution.

The 3rd respondent and subsequently the 2nd respondent also have filed counter-affidavits on behalf of the 1st respondent, stating that "acquisition fora public company is only one aspect of an acquisition for a public purpose," that the declaration made by the Government under S.6 of the Act is not justiciable in view of the provision in sub-section (3) thereof, that the Travancore Land Acquisition Act, 1089 (1914) is not affected by any constitutional infirmity mentioned by the petitioners, that the Government is the sole judge of urgency of a need for acquisition which may not therefore be justiciable, and that the acquisition has been made after due enquiry of the need and the purpose for which it is stated to be.

The 4th respondent - Company, in its counter-affidavit, has submitted that the establishment of a Tyre Factory is an essential public utility, that its products meet the necessities of essential services of the country, inclusive of the requirements of the defence forces, and that the land sought to be acquired is urgently needed for putting up buildings & structures for expansion of the Factory project.

In a reply-affidavit filed by the petitioners on October 7, 1963, it was pointed out that