RATANJI ARDESHIR DUBASH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who are trustees of A. B. Dubash Trust and as such own a building called 'Villa Ramona' situate at Nepean Sea Road, Bombay, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the allotment order dated November 19, 1965, whereby the requisitioned premises (Flat No. 3 in 'Villa Kamona') have been allotted to Dr. V. S. Sheth, on the ground that the said allotment is contrary to the public purpose, namely, 'housing a Bombay State Government servant' for which the said premises were requisitioned by the then Bombay Government under its requisition order dated January 31, 1957, inasmuch as Dr. Sheth is not a State Government servant but a private individual.

(2.) THE short facts giving rise to this petition may be stated. The premises in question fell vacant in or about December 1956, and the petitioners as the trustees gave intimation of that vacancy to the Government of Bombay. On January 31, 1957, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 6(4)(a) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, the Government issued a requisition order, whereby the said premises were requisitioned for a public purpose, namely, 'for housing a Bombay State Government servant.' On February 2, 1957, the premises were allotted to Shri M. S. Duleepsinghji, a Member of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission. Shri Duleepsingji occupied the premises as a Government allottee till his death. After his death, the Government issued a fresh allotment order on March 14, 1960 in favour of one Dr. M. D. Motashaw, and Dr. Motashaw occupied the premises till about the end of November 1965. It appears that Dr. Motashaw acquired other accommodation for himself some time in the month of October 1965 and informed the Government about his intention to vacate the premises by about November 30, 1965. In anticipation of Dr. Motashaw vacating the premises on November 30, 1965, on November 19, 1965, the respondent issued a fresh allotment order, whereby the premises have been allotted to Dr. Sheth. It further appears that Dr. Motashaw vacated the premises, and Dr. Sheth, the present allottee, has gone into possession of the premises on or about November 30, 1965. It may also be stated that Dr. Sheth, in whose favour the impugned order has been passed, became a Member of the Home Guards for Greater Bombay on or about December 16, 1965, and by his order dated December 22, 1965 the Commandant, Home Guards, Greater Bombay, was pleased to post Dr. Sheth to the Medical Wing with immediate effect. The allotment order in favour of Dr. Sheth is being challenged by the petitioners on the ground that, though a Member of Home Guards, he is not a State Government servant at all, and, as such, the order does not fulfil the public purpose for which the premises were requisitioned and, therefore, be quashed.

(3.) AS regards the preliminary point urged by Mr. Sanghavi, I may observe that it is a little difficult to accept the contention put forward by him in that behalf. It was urged by him that the petitioners were not challenging the validity of the requisition order dated January 31, 1957 which had been issued for a public purpose, namely, 'housing a State Government servant', and if that were so, no useful purpose would be served by merely setting aside the allotment order in favour of Dr. Sheth, even if the Court came to the conclusion that Dr. Sheth is not a State Government servant, for, according to Mr. Sanghavi, even if the allotment in favour of Dr. Sheth was set aside by this Court, it would still be open to the State Government to issue another order allotting the premises to a State Government servant; and in that sense the petitioners would not obtain any substantial relief in regard to the premises in question. He, therefore, urged that the relief sought by the petitioners should not be granted to them, and the petition should be dismissed. It is no doubt true that the petitioners have conceded that the initial requisition order is a perfectly valid order, since the premises were requisitioned for housing a State Government servant -which would indisputably be a public purpose -but if, after passing such a valid requisition order, the Government were to issue an allotment order allotting the premises to a person who was not a State Government servant, it is not understood as to why the Court should not strike down such allotment order.