Uncontrolled requisition power held unconstitutional for arbitrariness where the statute gave no guiding principles or standards.

Section 2 of the East Punjab Movable Property (Requisitioning) Act, 1947 was considered unconstitutional because it permitted requisition of any movable property without prescribing any principle, policy or public purpose to guide the State Government or authorised officers. The absence of legislative standards also left compensation to be fixed without governing criteria, creating uncontrolled discretion and the risk of arbitrary discrimination. The majority further held that delegation under section 8 did not cure this defect and that article 31(5) did not bar an article 14 challenge to a pre-Constitution law. On that reasoning, section 2 was invalid and the remaining provisions could not survive.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 2 of the East Punjab Movable Property (Requisitioning) Act, 1947 conferred arbitrary and unguided power violating article 14 of the Constitution, and whether the invalidity of that provision rendered the entire Act unconstitutional.

Analysis: The majority held that section 2 authorised requisition of any movable property without laying down any principle, policy, or purpose to guide the State Government or authorised officers. The Act did not require the order of requisition to specify a public purpose or any other limiting standard, and the compensation mechanism also left the amount to be fixed by the State Government without governing principles. The absence of legislative guidance made the discretion arbitrary and susceptible to discrimination. The existence of delegation powers under section 8 did not cure the vice. The majority further held that article 31(5) did not immunise a pre-Constitution law from challenge under article 14.

Conclusion: Section 2 was invalid for violating article 14, and the remaining provisions could not survive once the core provision failed. The appeals therefore failed.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional challenge succeeded, the impugned requisition order could not stand, and the High Court's striking down of the Act was upheld by the majority.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory power enabling requisition of property is unconstitutional under article 14 when it confers uncontrolled discretion without legislative guidelines or standards to prevent arbitrary discrimination.

---