Public purpose in requisition law cannot be narrowed by ejusdem generis; State competence may still support requisition for consulate staff housing.

The constitutional scheme for requisitioning or acquiring property recognises not only Union purpose and State purpose, but also a distinct category of any other public purpose. A restrictive ejusdem generis reading that would confine "any other public purpose" to a State purpose was rejected because it would make the expression redundant. Accommodation of a foreign consulate staff member was not treated as a Union purpose merely because consular matters fall within Union competence, since providing a room for staff is not the same as providing consular representation. The analysis states that requisition for such a public purpose can remain within State competence as a State purpose or another public purpose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State Government could validly requisition premises under section 6(4)(a) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 for housing a member of the staff of a foreign consulate, and whether such requisition fell outside State power as being only a Union purpose.

Analysis: The requisition was for a public purpose, and the constitutional scheme was read as recognising three categories of purpose for acquisition or requisition of property: Union purpose, State purpose, and any other public purpose. The restrictive construction based on ejusdem generis was rejected because the words "any other public purpose" were not to be confined to a State purpose alone, and such a reading would make the expression redundant. The accommodation of a consulate staff member was also not necessarily a Union purpose merely because consular representation falls within Union competence, since providing a room for such staff did not amount to providing consular representation. In any event, the purpose could also properly be viewed as a State purpose or as falling within the distinct category of other public purpose for which the State was competent to legislate and act.

Conclusion: The requisition was validly made and the objection to State competence failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the State's requisition order was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A requisition for a purpose that is a public purpose, even if it may incidentally relate to Union functions, is valid where it falls within the State's competence either as a State purpose or as another public purpose, and the expression "any other public purpose" cannot be cut down by ejusdem generis to mean only a State purpose.

---