In any event, Hamabais case companyld be distinguished as in that case there was a scheme for companystructing houses for Government servants generally and number procuring residential accommodation for one particular individual.
229 of 1953 decided on the 4th of October 1955 2 .
120 of 1952 arising out of the Order dated the II the day of September, 1952 of the said High Court in its Ordinary Original Jurisdiction in Misc.
The validity of the impugned order was also questioned by him on the ground that numberhing had been established to prove that by housing an officer of the Corporation in the requisitioned premises the needs or the purposes of the Corporation would be served or that it would companytribute to the efficiency of the officer companycerned.
235 of 1954.
On Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 26th day of February 1953 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
The State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji and Another 1 and The State of Bombay v. Ali Gulshan Civil Appeal No.
The impugned order, so far as it is relevant to the present appeal, stated, Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers companyferred by sub section 1 of section 5 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 Bombay Act XXXIII of 1948 the Government of Bombay is pleased to requisition the said part of the building for a public purpose, namely, for housing an Officer of the State Road Transport Corporation which is a public utility service.
Sri Narain Andley, J. B. Dadachanji and Rajinder Narain, for the respondent.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General of India B. Sen and R. H. Dhebar, with him for the appellant.
Against his decision the appellant appealed and a Division Bench of the said Court affirmed the decision of Tendolkar, J. The present appeal is by special leave against the decision of the High Court.
216 of 1952.
Application No.
In support of his submission he relied upon certain provisions of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 LXIV of 1950 , hereinafter referred to as the Act, the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Hamabai Framjee Petit v. Secretary of State for India in Council 1 and the decisions of this Court in 1 1914 L.R. 42 I.A. 44.
January 17.
The respondent filed a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Bombay High Court and the application was beard by Tendolkar, J. who set aside the impugned order.
By an order dated 12th May 1952, hereinafter referred to as the impugned order the Government of the State of Bombay requisitioned under section 5 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 Bombay Act XXXIII of 1948 , hereinafter referred to as the Requisition Act, the premises specified therein.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by IMAMJ.
