STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MOHANLAL KAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN order of requisition dated December 12, 1950, was challenged by the petitioner, and the learned Judge below Mr. Justice Shah held that the order was bad on the ground that the order did not recite that the requisition was for the purpose of the State or for other public purpose. The order in question is to the following effect :

(2.) NOW, Mr. Seervai's first contention is that the law does not require that the order should state the purpose for which the premises are requisitioned. In order to appreciate this contention it is necessary to look at the language of Section 6 (4) as amended. That section provides:

(3.) IT is next argued by Mr. Seervai that in fact if that be the true construction, the order does contain the necessary averment required by Section 6 (4) (a ). Mr. Seervai says that although the words of Section 6 (4) (a), viz. "for the purpose of the State or any other public purpose" are not set out in terms, by a reference, they are so set out, and Mr. Seervai says that the very fact that the order says that the power is being exercised under Clause (a) of Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act makes it clear that the power that is being exercised is the power referred to in Section 6 (4) (a), not any power but the power with the limitations laid down in Section 6 (4) (a ). Therefore, by reference to the section the order does comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 6 (4),