Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.25 seconds)
H.N. Nanje Gowda vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 8 March, 1996 cites

The State Of Bombay vs Ali Gulshan on 4 October, 1955

Somewhat identical arguments were raised in STATE OF BOMBAY v. ALI GULSHAN, . The question for consideration in that case was whether a certain premises for housing a member of the staff of foreign consulate could be provided by the State Government. The High Court held that though it was a public purpose to provide a house for the staff of a foreign consulate, the requisition was invalid as the public purpose must be either a purpose of the Union or a purpose of the State and in this particular case, the accommodation required for housing a member of foreign consulate staff was a Union purpose which was outside the scope of powers of the State. That decision was upset by the Supreme Court in the said decision. 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 building a hospital or educational institution by private benefactors would be a public purpose though it will not strictly be a State or Union purpose. When we speak of the State purpose or Union purpose, we think of duties and obligations cast on the State or Union to do a particular thing for the benefit of the public or a section of the public. The cases where the State acquires or requisitions properties to facilitate coming into existence the utilitarian institutions or schemes for having put welfare at heart would fall within the third category referred to earlier. Thus, we do not think the learned Counsel for the petitioners is justified in raising this contention in the light of this decision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 70 - Full Document
1   2 Next