RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in this appeal by special leave have brought in challenge the order of a division bench of the High court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing the writ petition moved by the appellants before that court. The appellants had challenged an order dated 29/10/1976 passed by the second respondent, District Magistrate-cum-Competent Authority, Kanpur, requisitioning 777 sq. yards and 7-1/3 sq. ft. of lands comprising of Plots Nos. 36 and 36-A situated on the Mall, Kanpur in exercise of the powers of the second respondent under Section 23 of Defence and internal Security of India Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The impugned order of the second respondent merely mentioned that the said order of requisition was issued as it was necessary and expedient to requisition the property in question for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community. The appellants were called upon by the said order to deliver by 15/11/1976 possession of the said immovable property to the Director, Handlooms and Managing Director of the U. P. State Handloom and Powerloom Finance and Development Corporation Ltd. , Kanpur, U. P. , Respondent 3 herein. During the writ proceedings it transpired that the said requisition order was issued with a view to seeing that the respondent-corporation concerned could construct shops and showrooms in the land in question for exhibiting its handloom products which were manufactured by handloom weavers. The appellants contended before the High court that the aforesaid purpose of requisition was dehors the provisions of Section 23 of the Act. It was next submitted that as it was a permanent purpose power of requisition under the Act would not be invoked for fructifying the said purpose and in any case such a requisition order could not continue indefinitely and hence the continued enforcement of the said order resulted in unreasonable exercise of power on the part of the second respondent. The division bench of the High court was not persuaded to accept the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and dismissed the writ petition. That is how the appellants are before us in this appeal.

(2.) Shri Sibal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, vehemently contended that the Act itself was a temporary statute having the limited existence being enacted during emergency, both external and internal, and had already ceased to operate since long and that the purpose for which the requisition was resorted to was dehors the provisions of Section 23 of the Act as providing a showroom for exhibiting the wares manufactured by weavers could not be said to have any nexus with the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community. He also submitted that in any case the purpose being of a permanent nature could not have been made the subject-matter of an order of requisition under Section 23 of the Act.

(3.) He lastly submitted that in any view of the matter the continued enforcement of the impugned order for all these years till date has become totally unreasonable and even on that ground the requisition order which had outlived its existence and legal efficacy deserves to be quashed.