TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court: Requisitioning Premises for Consulate Staff Serves Public Purpose</h1> <h3>THE STATE OF BOMBAY Versus ALI GULSHAN.</h3> The Supreme Court determined that requisitioning premises to house a member of a foreign consulate staff falls within the scope of a public purpose under ... - Issues:1. Interpretation of clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 6 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948.2. Determining whether requisitioning premises for housing a member of a foreign consulate staff constitutes a public purpose.3. Analysis of the constitutional validity of requisitioning property for public purposes.4. Application of the ejusdem generis rule in statutory interpretation.5. Classification of public purposes as State purpose, Union purpose, or general public purpose.Interpretation of Clause (a) of Sub-section (4) of Section 6:The Supreme Court analyzed whether the Government of Bombay was authorized to requisition premises under clause (a) of sub-section (4) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. The Court deliberated on the specific wording of the provision, which allows requisition for the purpose of a State or any other public purpose. The validity of the Act itself was not challenged, and the Court emphasized the importance of the requisition being for a public purpose.Public Purpose and Requisition for Consulate Staff:The Court examined whether requisitioning premises to house a member of a foreign consulate staff constituted a public purpose within the Act. Initially, the High Court held that while the requisition served a public purpose, it exceeded the State's powers as it was deemed a Union purpose. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, asserting that finding accommodation for consulate staff could be considered a State purpose or a general public purpose, justifying the requisition under the Act.Constitutional Validity of Requisition for Public Purposes:The judgment delved into the constitutional framework governing requisition or acquisition of property for public purposes. Referring to Article 31 of the Constitution, the Court highlighted the necessity for requisition to align with a public purpose and entail compensation. It clarified that both Union and State legislation must adhere to these principles, emphasizing the distinction between State, Union, and general public purposes.Application of Ejusdem Generis Rule:The Court scrutinized the application of the ejusdem generis rule in statutory interpretation. Disagreeing with the lower court's restrictive interpretation, the Supreme Court emphasized that the rule should be applied judiciously, especially when interpreting general or comprehensive statutory language. The Court underlined the need for a distinct genus encompassing multiple species before applying the rule.Classification of Public Purposes:Lastly, the judgment addressed the classification of public purposes as State purpose, Union purpose, or general public purpose. By referencing the legislative lists under the Constitution, the Court elucidated that requisitioning property for purposes beyond State or Union objectives could still constitute a public purpose. It emphasized the importance of considering the broader societal welfare in determining the validity of requisitions for public purposes.
TaxTMI 
