THE STATE OF BOMBAY versus ALI GULSHAN

Citation: [1955] 2 S.C.R. 867 · Decided: 04-10-1955 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
867 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY 
ti. 
ALI GULSHAN. 
Is. R. 
DAS, 
ACTING 
C.J., 
BHAGWATI, 
VENKATARAMA 
AYYAR, 
JAFER IMAM and CHANDRASEKHARA 
AIYAR JJ.] 
Lu11;titutiun 
of India-Article 31-Public purpose-Bombay 
Land Requisition Act, 1948 (Bombay Act XXXlll of 1948), s. 6( 4) 
(a )-Requisition for a public purpose of certain prrmises by the State 
of Bombay--For 'housing a member of the rtaff of a foreign consulate' 
-Whether the requisition was made for a 'public purpose' within the 
meaning of the Act. 
Held, that the Government of Bombay was entitled, under 
clause (a) of sub-section· ( 4) of s. 6 of the Bombay Land Requisition 
Act, 1948 (Bombay Act XXXIII of 1948) to requisition as for a pub-
lic purpose, certain premises for 'housing a member of the staff of a 
foreign consulate'. 
The purpose for which the requisition was made was a "public 
purpose" within the meaning of the Act; and the requisition was 
made in this case more as a State purpose than as a Union purpose. 
In any eYent "other publiC purpose", is a category distinct from 
"Union purpose" and "State purpose" and the acquisition or requi-
sitioning of property by the State except for rhe purpose of the Union, 
is within its competence under item 36 of the State List. 
An undertaking may have three different fucets or aspects and 
may serve the purpose of a State; the purpose of the Union and a 
general public purpose. Even if one may regard the requisition of 
a room for the accommodation of a member of a consulate as one 
appertaining to a Union purpose, it does not necesfarily cease to be 
a State purpose or a general public purpose. Therefore on this view 
also, the requisition in the present case must be held to have been 
validly made. 
Courts should lean against a construction which would render 
words. in a statute mere surplusage. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : 
No. 229 of 1953. 
Civil 
Appeal 
Appeal 
under Article 132(1) of the Constitution 
of India from the Judgment and Order dated ·the 16th 
December 1952 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal 
No. 110 of 1952. 
M; c. s~t'alvad; Attoriu·y-General of lndi,, 
(PMttS 
1955 
Ottoher 4 •. 
1955 
The State of 
Bombay 
v. 
Ali Gulshan 
868 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19551 
A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, with him) for the appcl-
!ant. 
Rajinder Narain for the respondent. 
1955. October 
4. 
The judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
CHANDRASEKHARA AtYAR J.-Was 
the Government 
of Bombay entitled, under clause (a) of 
sub-section 
( 4) of section 6 of the Bombay Land Requisition 
Act, 1948 (Bombay Act. XXXIII of 1948), to requi-
sition, as for a public purpose , certain pr<miscs for 
"housing a member of the staff of a foreign 
con-
sulate"?, is the question we have to consider in this 
appeal, which has arisen out of a writ petition filed 
under article 226 of the Constitution by the respon-
. dent in the Bombay High Court to restrain the State 
of Bombay from taking such action. 
On the hearing of the petition before Tendolkar, J., 
the State succeeded on the ground that the purpose 
for which the requisition was made was a "public 
purpose" within the 
meaning of 
the Act. 
But, on 
appeal, it was held that though the requisition was 
for a public purpose, the requisition order was invalid, 
as 1 he public purpose must be either a purpose of the 
Union, or a purpose of the State and in thi• parti-
cular case tbc 
accommodation 
being 
required · for 
housing a member of a foceign Consular staff was a 
Union purpose, which was outside the scope of the 
powers of the State. 
· 
Clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 6, omitting 
portions unnecessary 
for 
our present purposes, runs 
in these terms:-
"The State Government may, by order in writing, 
requisition the premises for the purpose of a State or 
any other public purpose, and may use or deal with 
the premises for any such purpose in such manner as 
may' appear to it to be expedient". 
The. validity of the Act is not questioned as un-
constitutional or as beyond the scope of the legisla-
tive competence of the State. 
As the premises were 
required for housing a member of the staff of a Con-
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
869 
sulate, there can be no doubt that it was wanted for 
a public purpose. 
The ultimate source of authority to requisition or 
acquire property is be found in article 31 of the Con-
stitution. The requisition or acquisition must :.,e 
for 
a public purpose and there must be compensat10n. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.