APAR PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the petitioners have impugned the order of requisition passed on 23rd July, 1976 requisitioning flats Nos. 9-A on the 9th floor and 10-A on the 10th floor of a building known as "Sunita", situate at Ridge Road, near Hanging Garden, Malbar Hill, Bombay. The purpose of requisition mentioned in the order is for housing a foreign Consul. On that very day allotment order was issued in favour of the consul General, Consulate General of United Republic of Egypt in Bombay, permitting him to occupy the said premises for the personal use of himself and for the use of his dependants normally residing with him. The allotment was on certain further terms and conditions. In order to appreciate the grounds of challenge, a few facts may be stated.

(2.) The petitioners are a private limited company, having their registered office at Baroda and the head office in Bombay. The Board of Directors of the petitioner company consists of Chairman Shri D.D. Desai, and two other directors Mrs. S.D. Desai and Dr. Narendra D. Desai. By an agreement dated 13th April, 1971 the petitioners agreed to purchase the two flats from Messers Comtrust Investment. The building "Sunita" was completed some time in March 1974 and the petitioners were put in possession of the two flats in June 1974. According to the petitioners, the two flats in June 1974. According to the petitioners, the two flats were purchased by the petitioners for the use of one of their Directors, the said Mrs. S.D. Desai. According to the petitioners, thereafter various contracts were awarded for the purpose of furnishing, decorating and fitting the said flats. Details of all such work are indicated in para 2 of the petition. Particulars of the various Architects, Interior decorators, Electrical Contractors and similar person approached and appointed by the petitioners are indicated in para 3 of the petition. According to the petitioners, extensive electrical work was required to be done, with the result that the certificate of completion was required to be given by the B.E.S.& T. Undertaking. The petitioners claim that for the purchase of the two flats from the said firm of M/s. Comtrust Investment and for the purposes of furnishing decorating and providing additional fittings and fixtures the petitioners expended a large amount as indicated in para 4 of the petition.

(3.) On 13th April, 1976 a notice was received by the petitioners from the Accommodation Officer calling upon the petitioners to see him on 5th May, 1976 and to show cause why the said two flats should not be requisitioned. In reply to this notice the petitioners by their letter dated 4th May, 1976 complained that the notice was vague, and by the said letter the Accommodation Officer was requested to clarify the position. On 20th May, 1976 a detailed reply was sent by the petitioners which gave, inter alia, the area of the flats, the various works which were being carried out in the said flats and the various personnel of different categories who had been employed for diverse purposes. Particulars of the outgoings including maintenance charges and municipal taxes were also furnished. In the said letter it was, inter alia, pointed out that the petitioner-company had purchaased the said flats on ownership basis for the use and occupation of one of the Directors of the company but that the same had not been occupied because furnishing and decoration work had not been completed. Affidavits of several persons concerned with the work which was being done in the said flats were also filed with the Accommodation Officer. On 14th July, 1976, the Controller of Accommodation addressed a letter to the petitioners attorneys calling upon them to let him know the specific reason for the very long time taken for carrying out renovation, additions and alterations to make the flats suitable for occupation. By this letter agreement for the purchase of the flats was also sought. According to the petitioners, the attorneys received this letter on the 15th July and on 19th July, 1976 the attorneys addressed a letter stating that the necessary information was being gathered and instructions sought from the petitioners and that as soon as this was available, particulars would be sent to the Controller of Accommodation. It is in this state of affairs that the impugned order was issued. According to the petitioners, this was received by their Bombay Office at about 1.30 p.m. Within a short time thereafter the petitioners learnt that the officers of the respondents accompanied by a Police Sub-Inspector and a duplicate key-maker had gone to the flats and taken possession thereof; this was alleged to have taken place at about 2.00 on that very day. It is thereafter that on 20th July, 1976 the present petition was filed.