CHHOTALAL RAMDAS PATEL Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for an appropriate Writ, direction or order restraining the State of Bom-bay from enforcing a requisition order dated 5-3-1954. The order is made under Section 6 (4) (a), Bombay Land Requisition Act and contains a declaration that the premises specified in the order had become vacant in November 1952.

(2.) The main ground on which the petition has been argued before me on behalf of the petitioner is that the inquiry which was held prior to the making of the declaration that the premises were vacant was of such a character as to amount to no inquiry it all, and the argument is that since the holding of an inquiry is a condition precedent to the making of such a declaration, the declaration made without such at inquiry is void. It has also been urged that the order of requisition was not served on the petitioner and therefore cannot bind him until it is properly served on him.

(3.) Now, the provision for holding an inquiry is to be found in the proviso to Section 6 (4) which is in these words: "Provided that where an order is to be made under Clause (a) requisitioning the premises in respect of which no intimation has been given by the landlord, the State Government shall make such inquiry as it deems fit and make a declaration....." It is clear, therefore, that the Stale Government has to make an inquiry, and if in fact no inquiry was held, the declaration would be vitiated by the absence of an inquiry; but if an inquiry has in fact been held, then a Division Bench of this Court has held in -- 'Alarakhia v. Collector of Nasik', that the words "inquiry shall be such. as it deems Jit" clearly negative the suggestion that the inquiry is of a judicial nature. The learned Chief Justice who delivered the judgment ot the bench iurther observes (p. 132):