| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1956 SLG 35 1956 SLD 35 1956 PLD 138 |
Supreme Court of India
Civil Appeal No. 229 of 1953, decided on 4th October 1955, under Article 132 (1) of the Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order dated the 16th December 1952 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 110 of 1952.
S. R. DAS, A. C.J., BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR, JAFAR IMAM AND CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR, JJ
M. C. Setalvad Attorney General of India (Porus A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, with him) for Appellant. Rajinder Narain for
Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 229 of 1953, decided on 4th October 1955, under Article 132 (1) of the Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order dated the 16th December 1952 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 110 of 1952.
S. R. DAS, A. C.J., BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR, JAFAR IMAM AND CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR, JJ
M. C. Setalvad Attorney General of India (Porus A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, with him) for Appellant. Rajinder Narain for
Respondent.
THE STATE OF BOMBAY---Appellant
VS
ALI GULSHAN--Respondent
Law:
Section:
Constitution of India----Article 31 (Constitution of Pakistan, Article 15)-Requisition for public purpose-Whether the requisition for residence of a member of the staff of a foreign consulate is for the purpose of a State-Construction of Statutes -Ejusdem generis. The Statute provided that, " The State Government may, by order in writing, requisition the premises for the purpose of a State or any other public purpose . . . . . . " The premises were requisitioned for housing a member of the staff of a consulate. The High Court held that the public purpose mist be either a purpose of the Union or a purpose of the State as the words " any other purpose " should be read ejusdem generis with " the purpose of .the State ". The requisition was not for the purpose of the State. Held, that the ejusdem generis rule has no application. The rule ejusdem generis must be confined within narrow limits and general or comprehensive words should receive their full and natural meaning unless they are clearly restrictive in their intendment. There must be a distinct genus which must comprise more than one species, before the rule can be applied. If the words " any other pulic purpose " in the Statute in question have been used only to mean a State purpose they would become mere surplusage ; Courts should lean against such a construction as far as possible. JUDGMENT CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR, J.----Was the Government of Bombay entitled, under clause (a) of subsection (4) of section 6 .of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 (Bombay Act XXXIII of 1948), to requisition, as for a public purpose, certain premises for " housing a member of the staff of a foreign consulate " ?, is the question we have to consider in this appeal, which has arisen out of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the respondent in the Bombay High Court to restrain the State of Bombay, from taking such action. On the hearing of the petition before Tendolkar, J., the State succeeded on the ground that the purpose for which the requisition was made was a "public purpose " within the meaning of the Act. But, on appeal, it was held that though the requisition was for a public purpose, the…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492