RAJMAL SURANA Vs. STATE

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 belonging to him and situated in Morena. The order runs as follows; -

(2.) IN the petition, the applicant has questioned the validity of the Collectors 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 Vs. Collector Damoh, 1962 JLJ 533. Shri Dabir, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, did not rightly press 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 (1) 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 bonafide. To support his argument, learned counsel relied on the decision in H.N. Malak Vs. State, 1961 JLJ -SN 125.

(3.) NOW , in the present case the impugned order no doubt does not contain a recital about the formation of opinion by the Collector that it was necessary to requisition a portion of the petitioner's house for a (Public purpose as defined in section 2(d) of the Act which includes providing accommodation for the residence of a person holding officer of pro -profit under the State Government. But from the return filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 it is abundantly plain that it became necessary to requisition a portion of the petitioner's house, which was in the occupation of one Shri Gore, Deputy Collector, Morena, but had fallen vacant on account of his transfer, because when Shri Ghorpade, who had been transferred to Morena, asked the petitioner let out the accommodation to him, the petitioner refused to do so and Shri Ghorpade was not able to find any other private or Government accommodation in the town of Morena; and that Shri Ghorpade, therefore, made an application to the Collector stating that the petitioner was not willing to let out to him the portion vacated by Shri Gore, that he was not able to find any private accommodation in Morena, that he was a married man having a large family, that the house in the occupation of Shri Bhatnagar, District Publicity Officer, should be allotted to him, that the portion or the house vacated by Shri Gore should be requisitioned, and that Shri Bhatnagar was a widower living all by himself and his children were in school in Gwalior and, therefore, he should be asked to occupy the requisitioned portion. On receipt of this application of Shri Ghorpade, the Collector considered the application and then passed an order on 13th July 1964 that the portion of the petitioner's home vacated by Shri Gore should be requisitioned for the residence of Shri Bhatnagar and that Shri Ghorpade should be allotted the house which was in the occupation of Shri Bhatnagar. In his order (Annexure R/3 to the return) the Collector stated inter alia that -