Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Bhagwati by which he ordered a writ of certiorari to issue against respondent No. 1, who is the Assistant Secretary to the Government of Bombay, Health and Local Government Department, the Province of Bombay, respondent No. 2, and Mr. Vartak, a Minister of the Government of Bombay, formerly in charge of the Health and Local Government Department, respondent No. 3. The material facts which led up to the order made by Mr. Justice Bhagwati may be briefly stated. One Abdul Hamid Ismail was, prior to January 29, 1948, the tenant of the first floor of a building known as "Paradise" at Warden Road, Bombay, the landlord of which was one Dr. M. v. Vakil. On January 29, 1948, Ismail assigned his tenancy to the petitioner and two others, the son and brother's daughter's son of the petitioner. All the three assignees were refugees from Sind. On February 4, 1948, the petitioner went into possession of the flat. On February 26, 1948, the Government of Bombay issued an order requisitioning the flat. The order was issued under Section 3 of the Bombay Land Requistioning Ordinance, V of 1947, which had come into force on December 4, 1947. The order purported to be issued by order of the Governor of Bombay and was signed by P.V. Rao as Secretary to the Government of Bombay, Health and Local Government Department. On the same day Mr. Rao wrote to Dr. Vakil informing him that Government had allotted the premises to Mrs. C. Dayaram. Mrs. C. Dayaram is also a refugee from Sind. On February 27, 1948, the Government of Bombay, in exercise of the powers conferred upon them by Section 8 of the Ordinance, authorised Mr. A.J. Lalvani, an Inspector of the Health and Local Government Department, to take possession of the premises. On March 4, 1948, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of certiorari and an order under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. On that petition an interim injunction was granted restraining the (government from obtaining post-session of the flat. Originally the petition was directed only against respondent No. 1, but by a subsequent amendment the Province of Bombay and Mr. Vartak were brought on the record of the petition and an order was sought against them also. It is on this petition that Mr. Justice Bhagwati made the order from which this appeal is preferred.

18. Mr. Justice Bhagwati has also taken the view that the order is bad because it was served on the two other assignees in whose favour along with the petitioner the assignment of the tenancy was made. Section 11 of the Ordinance provides that every order made under Section 3 shall be served, if it is an order affecting an individual person, on the person in the manner provided. Sub-section (2) provides that when a question arises where a person was duly informed of an order made under the Ordinance, compliance with the requirements of Sub-section (1) would be conclusive proof that he was so informed, but failure to comply with the said requirements shall not preclude proof by other means that he was so informed or affect the validity of the order. Therefore, it is clear that the validity of the order under Section 3 does not depend upon its service upon all1 the persons affected by that order. The most that could be said would be that a particular order would not be effective against any person unless it was served upon him. The order has been served upon the petitioner and therefore it is not competent to him to say that the order is not valid or is not enforceable as against him. With respect, therefore, I do not agree with Mr. Justice Bhagwati when he holds that the order was not in accordance with law because it was not served upon the other two assignees. Mr. Justice Bhagwati has also taken the view that the order was bad because it was not addressed to the petitioner and his co-assignees. With respect, I do not agree with that view. Section 3 of the Ordinance does not require that the requisitioning order should be addressed to any person.