JAGATCHANDRA N VORA Vs. PROVINCE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for determination in these rules and also in other rules in respect of orders of requisition issued under Section 6 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, is whether a writ of certiorari lies in respect of such an order. It has been argued in all the rules, although this judgment is headed only in some of the rules typical of the two classes of cases which arise under Section 6, viz. (1) where an intimation of vacancy has been given and (2) where no such in timation is given.

(2.) In P.V. Rao V/s. Girdharlal Lallubhai (1949) 51 Bom. L.R. 438. Division Bench of this Court, to which I was a party, came to the conclusion that an order of requisition under Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Bombay Land Requisition Ordinance, 1947, was a quasi-judicial act, and, therefore, subject to the writ of certiorari. In order to appreciate what actually was decided in that appeal it is necessary to look at the scheme of Section 4 of the Ordinance and the facts of the appeal. Sub-section (7) of that section casts an obligation on the landlord to give intimation of a vacancy to the Provincial Government, vacancy being defined in that sub- section. Sub-section (2) provides for the period during which such intimation should be given. Sub-section (3) prohibits the landlord from letting out the premises for a month after the receipt of the intimation by the Provincial Government. Sub-section (4) enables Government to requisition vacant premises Whether or not an intimation has been given. Sub-section (5) prescribes a penalty for not giving the intimation.

(3.) It is apparent that there are two classes of cases in which vacant premises may be requisitioned by the Provincial Government: (1) where an intimation has been given by the landlord and (2) where no such intimation has been given. The decision in P.V. Rao v. Girdharlal Lallubhai was given in a case in which no intimation of vacancy had been given to the Government and Government had to determine, before they could proceed to requisition, whether a vacancy existed. No argument was addressed to us during the course of hearing of that appeal as to whether an order of requisition made after an intimation of vacancy had been received by Government was or was not a quasi-judicial act; and that question is, therefore, still open for determination. With regard to the question actually decided in that appeal, it is urged that there has been a change in the law; and even accepting the ratio of our decision, which, of course, the Provincial Government challenges, the order of requisition under Section 6 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act (Bom. XXXIII of 1948), is not quasi- judicial.