RAJMAL JASKARAN SURANA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The petitioner in this case seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing an order made by the Collector, Morena, on 14th July 1964, under section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation (Requisition) Act, 1948, requisitioning a portion of a house beloning to him and situated in Morena. The order runs as follows :-

(2.) IN the petition, the applicant has questioned the validity of the Collector's order dated the 14th July, 1964 on the grounds that the Act infringes Article 19 (i) (f) of the Constitution and is, therefore, ultra vires; and that the impugned order was passed by the Collector on account of prejudice and bias against him. IN view of the decision of a Full Bench in Jagdish Narayan v. Collector, Damoh(v), Shri Dabir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, did not rightly press the objection about the vires of the Act. The only contention he advanced before us was that the requisitioning order did not at all indicate whether before passing that order the Collector had, as required by section 3 (i) of the Act, formed the opinion that it was necessary to requisition the accommodation in question for a public purpose. It was said that the return filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 also did not show that before making the impugned order the Collector had formed an opinion as to the necessity for requisitioning the accommodation; and that the requisitioning of a portion of the house for the residence of Shri Bhatnagar, District Publicity Officer of Morena who was already occupying a Government quarter, only indicated that the Collector did not act bona fide. To support his argument, learned counsel relied on the decision in H.N. Malak v. State(1961 MPLJ Note No. 125 MP No. 255 of 1960 decided on 5th July 1961).

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner laid much stress on the circumstance that the requisitioning was for the residence of Shri Bhatnagar who was already occupying a Govt, quarter and not for Shri Ghorpade to show that there was no necessity at all for requisitioning the accommodation in question and that the order passed by Collector was not bona fide. This suggestion is unsubstantial. The necessity for requisitioning arose because there was no accommodation available for the residence of a Deputy Collector, and not because Shri Bhatnagar was at that time not finding, or lodged in, any accommodation. That necessity having been established according to the opinion formed by the Collector, it made no difference whatsoever whether after requisitioning the accommodation it was occupied by Shri Bhatnagar or by Shri Ghorpade. The question whether Shri Ghorpade should occupy the Government quarter, which was then in occupation of Shri Bhatnagar, and Shri Bhatnagar should go in the requisitioned accommodation, or whether Shri Ghorpade should occupy the requisitioned portion of the petitioner's house, was an internal matter between the Collector and his deputies. It has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the order made under section 3(1) of the Act.