RAMANAND SHAW Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application the grievance of the petitioners is that a Flat situate at 128A, Dharamtalla Street, Calcutta was requisitioned on 6th May, 1957. Since then the requisition has been continuing. The petitioners have also contended that requisition cannot continue for ever and it was not made for any public purpose. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In para 6 of the said affidavit it has been stated as follows :-

(2.) It has not been stated what is the public purpose and who is Shri Sukumar Moitra to whom the flat was allotted on 31-1-59. Thereafter the flat was again allotted to Smt. Arati Halder. Her status is not known. It would also appear from the affidavit that the kitchen (separate from the Main-Building) was restored on 27-9-79 on de-requisition.

(3.) My attention has been drawn to a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of H.D. Vora v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 866 where Supreme Court has observed that it is not necessary that the order of requisition must explicitly set out the public purpose for which it is made. The only requirement of the law is that the requisition must be made for a public purpose and so long as there is a public purpose for which an order of requisition is made, it would be valid, irrespective of whether such public purpose is recited in the order of requisition or not. The Supreme Court has further held that although the order of requisition need not set out the public purpose for which it was made, the State Government would have to show that the order of requisition was made for a public purpose and the necessary facts showing the public purpose for which the order of requisition was made would have to be established by the State Government to the satisfaction of court.