# The State of Bombay v. Ali Gulshan

- **Citation:** [1955] 2 S.C.R. 867
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1952-12-16
- **Case number:** No. 229 of 1953
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-state-of-bombay-v-ali-gulshan-1520
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
867
THE STATE OF BOMBAY
ti.
ALI GULSHAN.
Is. R.
DAS,
ACTING
C.J.,
BHAGWATI,
VENKATARAMA
AYYAR,
JAFER IMAM and CHANDRASEKHARA
AIYAR JJ.]
Lu11;titutiun
of India-Article 31-Public purpose-Bombay
Land Requisition Act, 1948 (Bombay Act XXXlll of 1948), s. 6( 4)
(a )-Requisition for a public purpose of certain prrmises by the State
of Bombay--For 'housing a member of the rtaff of a foreign consulate'
-Whether the requisition was made for a 'public purpose' within the
meaning of the Act.
Held, that the Government of Bombay was entitled, under
clause (a) of sub-section· ( 4) of s. 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'.
The purpose for which the requisition was made was a "public
purpose" within the meaning of the Act; and the requisition was
made in this case more as a State purpose than as a Union purpose.
In any eYent "other publiC purpose", is a category distinct from
"Union purpose" and "State purpose" and the acquisition or requisitioning of property by the State except for rhe purpose of the Union,
is within its competence under item 36 of the State List.
An undertaking may have three different fucets or aspects and
may serve the purpose of a State; the purpose of the Union and a
general public purpose. Even if one may regard the requisition of
a room for the accommodation of a member of a consulate as one
appertaining to a Union purpose, it does not necesfarily cease to be
a State purpose or a general public purpose. Therefore on this view
also, the requisition in the present case must be held to have been
validly made.
Courts should lean against a construction which would render
words. in a statute mere surplusage.
CIVIL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION :
No. 229 of 1953.
Civil
Appeal
Appeal
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.
M; c. s~t'alvad; Attoriu·y-General of lndi,,
(PMttS
1955
Ottoher 4 •.
1955
The State of
Bombay
v.
Ali Gulshan
868
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19551
A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, with him) for the appcl-
!ant.
Rajinder Narain for the respondent.
1955. October
4.
The judgment of the Court
was delivered by
CHANDRASEKHARA AtYAR J.-Was
the Government
of Bombay entitled, under clause (a) of
sub-section
( 4) of section 6 of the Bombay Land Requisition
Act, 1948 (Bombay Act. XXXIII of 1948), to requisition, as for a public purpose , certain pr<miscs 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 respon-
. dent 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 requisition order was invalid,
as 1 he public purpose must be either a purpose of the
Union, or a purpose of the State and in thi• particular case tbc
accommodation
being
required · for
housing a member of a foceign Consular staff was a
Union purpose, which was outside the scope of the
powers of the State.
·
Clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 6, omitting
portions unnecessary
for
our present purposes, runs
in these terms:-
"The State Government may, by order in writing,
requisition the premises for the purpose of a State or
any other public purpose, and may use or deal with
the premises for any such purpose in such manner as
may' appear to it to be expedient".
The. validity of the Act is not questioned as unconstitutional or as beyond the scope of the legislative competence of the State.
As the premises were
requ

## Text

2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
867
THE STATE OF BOMBAY
ti.
ALI GULSHAN.
Is. R.
DAS,
ACTING
C.J.,
BHAGWATI,
VENKATARAMA
AYYAR,
JAFER IMAM and CHANDRASEKHARA
AIYAR JJ.]
Lu11;titutiun
of India-Article 31-Public purpose-Bombay
Land Requisition Act, 1948 (Bombay Act XXXlll of 1948), s. 6( 4)
(a )-Requisition for a public purpose of certain prrmises by the State
of Bombay--For 'housing a member of the rtaff of a foreign consulate'
-Whether the requisition was made for a 'public purpose' within the
meaning of the Act.
Held, that the Government of Bombay was entitled, under
clause (a) of sub-section· ( 4) of s. 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'.
The purpose for which the requisition was made was a "public
purpose" within the meaning of the Act; and the requisition was
made in this case more as a State purpose than as a Union purpose.
In any eYent "other publiC purpose", is a category distinct from
"Union purpose" and "State purpose" and the acquisition or requisitioning of property by the State except for rhe purpose of the Union,
is within its competence under item 36 of the State List.
An undertaking may have three different fucets or aspects and
may serve the purpose of a State; the purpose of the Union and a
general public purpose. Even if one may regard the requisition of
a room for the accommodation of a member of a consulate as one
appertaining to a Union purpose, it does not necesfarily cease to be
a State purpose or a general public purpose. Therefore on this view
also, the requisition in the present case must be held to have been
validly made.
Courts should lean against a construction which would render
words. in a statute mere surplusage.
CIVIL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION :
No. 229 of 1953.
Civil
Appeal
Appeal
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.
M; c. s~t'alvad; Attoriu·y-General of lndi,,
(PMttS
1955
Ottoher 4 •.
1955
The State of
Bombay
v.
Ali Gulshan
868
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19551
A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, with him) for the appcl-
!ant.
Rajinder Narain for the respondent.
1955. October
4.
The judgment of the Court
was delivered by
CHANDRASEKHARA AtYAR J.-Was
the Government
of Bombay entitled, under clause (a) of
sub-section
( 4) of section 6 of the Bombay Land Requisition
Act, 1948 (Bombay Act. XXXIII of 1948), to requisition, as for a public purpose , certain pr<miscs 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 respon-
. dent 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 requisition order was invalid,
as 1 he public purpose must be either a purpose of the
Union, or a purpose of the State and in thi• particular case tbc
accommodation
being
required · for
housing a member of a foceign Consular staff was a
Union purpose, which was outside the scope of the
powers of the State.
·
Clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 6, omitting
portions unnecessary
for
our present purposes, runs
in these terms:-
"The State Government may, by order in writing,
requisition the premises for the purpose of a State or
any other public purpose, and may use or deal with
the premises for any such purpose in such manner as
may' appear to it to be expedient".
The. validity of the Act is not questioned as unconstitutional or as beyond the scope of the legislative competence of the State.
As the premises were
required for housing a member of the staff of a Con-
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
869
sulate, there can be no doubt that it was wanted for
a public purpose.
The ultimate source of authority to requisition or
acquire property is be found in article 31 of the Constitution. The requisition or acquisition must :.,e
for
a public purpose and there must be compensat10n.
This article applies with equal force to Union legislation and State legislation. Items 33 and 36 of List I
& List II 'of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution
empower respectively Parliament and the State Legislatures to enact laws with respect to them.
The
reasoning by which the learned appellate
Judges of the Bombay High Court reached their conclusion is shortly this. There can be no public purpose, which is not a purpose of the Union or a purpose of the State. There are only these two categories to consider under the statute, as
the words
"any other purpose" in the particular context should
be read ejusdem generis with "the purpose of the
State". The provision of accommodation for a member of the foreign consulate staff is a "purpose of the
Union" and not a "purpose of the State".
We are unable to uphold this view as regards both
the standpoints.
Item 33 in
the
Union
Legislative
List (List I) refers to "acquisition or requisitioning
of property for the purposes of the Union". Hem 36
in the State List (List II) relates to "acquisition or
requisitioning of property, except for the purposes of
ihe Union, subject to the provisions of entry 42 of
List III". Item 42 of the Concurrent Legislativ.:: List
(List III) speaks of the "the purpose of the Union or
of a State or for any other public purpose". Reading
the three items together, it is fairly obvious that
the
categories
of
"purpose"
contemplated
are three
in
number, namely, Union
purpose, State purpose, and
any other public purpose.
Though every State purpose or Union purpose must be a public purpose, it is
easy to think of cases where the purpose of the acquisition or requisition is neither the one nor the
other but a public purpose.
Acquisition of sites
for
the bulding of hospitals or educational institutions
by
private
benefactors
will
be
a
public
purpose,
1955
The State of
Bombay
v.
Ali Gulshan
Chandrasekhara
AiJ!ar J.
1955
The State of
Bombay
v.
Ali Gulshan
Chandrasekhara
Aiyar J.
870
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
though it will not strictly be a State or Union purpose. When we speak of a State purpose or a Union
purpose, we think of duties and obligations cast on
the State or the Union to do particular things for the
benefit of the public or a section of the public. Cases
where the State acquires or requisitions property
to
facilitate
the
coming
into
existence
of utilitarian
institutions, or schemes
having
public
welfare
at
heart,
will
fall
within the
third category
abovementioned.
With great respect, we are constrained to say that
the ejusdem generis rule of construction, which found
favour in the court below for reaching the result that
the words "any other public purpose" are restricted
to a public purpose which is also a purpose of the
State, has ;carcely any application.
Apart from the
.fact that the· rule 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, it is requisite
that there must be a distiμct genus, which must comprise more than one species, before the rule can be
applied. If the words "any other public 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.
Even . if it is conceded that the law contemplates
only two purposes, namely, State purpose and Union
purpose, it is difficult to see how finding accommodation for the staff of a foreign consulate is a Union
purpose and not a State purpose.
Item 11 in the Union
list
specifies
"diplomatic, consular
and trade representation" as one of the subjects within the legislative
competence of Parliament, and under article 73 of the
Constitution,• the executive power of the Union shall
extend to all such matters.
It can hardly be said
· that securing a room for a member of the staff of a
foreign consulate
amounts
to providing for
consular
representation, and that therefore it is a purpose of
the Union for which the State
cannot
legislate. .It
was conceded by Mr.
Rajinder
Narain, Counsel
for
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
871
the Respondent, that there is no duty cast upon the
Union to provide accommodation
for
the
consulate
staff, and this must be so, when we remember that the
routine duties of . a Consul in modem times are to protect the interests and promote the commercial affairs
of the State which he represents, and that his powers,
p:rivileges and immunities are not analogous to those
of an ambassador. The trade and commerce of the
State which appoints him with the State in which he
is located are his primary concern. The State of
Bombay is primarily interested in its own trade and
commerce and in the efficient discharge of his duties
by the foreign
consul functioning
within the
State.
We are inclined to regard the purpose for which the
requisition was made in this case more as a State purpose than as a Union purpose.
In any event, as already pointed out, "other public
purpose" is a distinct category
for which
the State
of Bombay can legislate, .as the acquisition or requisitioning of property except ·· for the
purposes
of
the
Union, is within its competence under item 36 of the
State List.
There is another way of looking at the question involved.
An
undertaking may have · three
different
facets or aspects, and niay serve the purpose of a State.
the purpose of the Union and. a general public purpose. ·. Even if one may regard the requisition of a
room for the accommodation of a member of a Consulate as one appertaining to a Union purpose, it does
not necessarily cease to be a State purpose or a general public purpose.
In this view also, the requisition
in this case must be held to have been validly made.
For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed
and the order of Tendolkar J. is restored with costs
. payable to the appellant by the respondent throughout.
·
1955
The State of
Bombay
v.
Ali Gulshan
Chandrasekhar a
Aryar ].