FIRM JUGGILAL KAMLAPAT Vs. COLLECTOR OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are a firm carrying on business at Bombay, Cawnpore, Calcutta and several other places. The partners of the petitioners firm are three brothers, viz., Sir Padampat Singhania, Lala Kailashpat Singhania and Lala Lakshmipat Singhania. In paras. 1 and 2 of their petition the petitioners set out the various businesses and industrial concerns in which they are interested and also set out the manner in which the partners of the petitioners firm as well as the directors, managers and; representatives of one or more of the concerns of the petitioners in India are obliged to and do in fact come down to Bombay very frequently. They say that for the purpose of housing them as well as the offices, of their several businesses they have rented: since 1941 flat No. 4 on the third floor of the premises known as Ganga Bihar at Marine Drive in Bombay. The petitioners say that they have no other place in Bombay where they can have any accommodation for the aforesaid purposes and that the flat is indispensable to them for their business purposes and for the purposes of the residence of their representative and the other persons when they come down to Bombay. In para. 3 of their petition, they also point out the activities of Sir Padampat Singhania and Lala Kailashpat Singhania, the partners of the petitioners firm, and the manner in which they are obliged to come down to Bombay from time to time and put up at the flat whenever they happen to come down to Bombay. After describing their multifarious activities and the needs as I have above, described, the petition proceeds to state that, in the beginning of January 1945 respondent 1 served an order No. CPWD/69 pur-porting to have been issued on behalf of the Central Government Under Rule 75A, Defence of India Rules, read with the Notification of the Government of India Defence Coordination Department No. 1336/OR/1/42 dated 25 April 1942, whereby the flat was requisitioned from the date of the order and the petitioners were directed to deliver possession of the flat to the Superintending Engineer, Western Circle, Central P.W.D., respondent 2, on 16 February 1945.

(2.) On receipt of the order a letter was addressed on behalf of Sir Padampat Singhania, the partner of the petitioners firm, by his advocate to the respondent contending in the first instance that the said order was not good in law and was null and void as the person in whose name the requisition order was issued was dead and gone long ago and that the flat was actually in the name of J. Rule Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills, Ltd. Without prejudice to his contention, Sir Padampat Singhania. wrote to say that the particular flat was required for their business purposes and for the purposes of residence of the various persons who came down to Bombay and the only accommodation available to the J.K. Directors was the flat in question. He pointed out that so far as Bombay was concerned, the J.K.S. had no other premises available to them for occupation except a cottage at Juhu known as Kamla Cottage" which was in the sole occupation of Mr. N.C. Mehta, I. C. Section, former Sugar Controller, but now in the employ of the J.K.S. He stated that the flat was not vacant and was continually occupied and used by the J.K.S. Directors (one of the rooms being used for the office purposes) and that they had no other place of accommodation in Bombay. He pointed out that an inquiry regarding the flat had been made by the Special Officer, Requisitioning, sometime in November 1944 and it was presumed that he was satisfied about the genuineness of his case that the flat was necessary for the residential accommodation of the directors. He further pointed out that there would be no dearth of vacant flats in Bombay, many of which would be available for Government purposes and that there is was scarcely any necessity for the Government to deprive the genuine occupiers of their flats like him of the flats in their use and occupation. By his letter dated 16 January 1945, Sir Padampat Singhania through his advocate corrected the misstatement which he had made in his earlier letter dated 9th January 1945, that the person in whose name the requisition order was issued was dead and gone long ago. He stated that the flat did not stand in the name of the J. Rule Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills, Ltd., but stood in the name of Seth Juggilal Kamlapat in which name the requisition order had been issued. Sir Padampat Singhania through his advocate addressed a further letter dated 19 January 1945, to respondent 1, wherein he elucidated and added some further points for the consideration of respondent 1. He recounted therein the various qualifications and activities of his and those of Mr. Bharatia, Lala Kailashpat Singhania, Lala Sohanlal Singhania and other directors of the J.K. Industries. He stated that most of the concerns in which he was concerned were doing genuine war work and reiterated his request for the cancellation of the requisition order. Respondent 1, however, replied, on 5 February 1945, that he had considered the representations which Sir Padampat Singhania had made in his letters dated 9 January 1945, and 19 January 1945, and regretted to state that the requisition order could not be withdrawn. The petitioners firm, therefore, by their attorneys letter dated 12 February 1945, wrote a letter to the Adviser to His Excellency the Governor of Bombay putting on record the various facts and1 representations which they had made in. the said letters dated 9 January 1945, and 19 January 1945, above referred to, and which they had addressed to respondent 1. After setting out therein with great elaboration the facts and representations above mentioned, the letter stated in para. 16 thereof that the said flat was entirely indispensable to them and to their business, that they were doing considerable war work through their various concerns therein mentioned, particularly the Eastern Chemical Co. and the Raymond Woollen Mills, Ltd., of Bombay, and J. Rule Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills, Ltd., that all the other concerns of Bombay as well as Cawnpore and Calcutta were mostly doing war work, that all the said work would suffer immensely and they would be put to immense loss if the said flat were not allowed to remain in their possession and they were prevented, from locating their permanent manager and other representatives in Bombay and from themselves coming to Bombay. They added that if the said flat was not derequisitioned the Government alone would be responsible for the aforesaid consequences and they would have no alternative but to proceed further according to law. This letter also had not the desired effect. The Government were absolutely uninfluenced by the threat held out in para. 16 of that letter that the war work which the petitioners were doing would suffer immensely if the flat was not derequisitioned as asked for and a letter was addressed by the Under Secretary to the Government of Bombay, Revenue Department, to the petitioners attorneys on 16 February 1945, whereby the petitioners were, informed that Government saw no reason to interfere in the matter.

(3.) When these representations which the petitioners made to respondent 1 as well as to the Adviser to His Excellency the Governor of Bombay had not their desired effect, the petitioners filed this petition in this Court. In para. 7 of their petition the petitioners submitted that respondent l was not competent to issue the said order of requisition. They stated that Rule 75A, Defence of India Rules, appeared to have been framed by the Central Government in exercise of their powers Under Secs.(2) 2 (xxiv), Defence of India Act, that "requisition" was a distinct and separate category of legislative power and that "requisitioning" of property was not covered by or included in any entry in the three lists contained in Sob. VII, Government of India Act and that neither the Central Legislature nor the Provincial Legislature was competent to legislate in respect thereto and that, therefore, Rule 75A, Defence of India Rules, was ultra vires and bad. In para. 8 of their petition, they stated that there was no provision for compensation made anywhere in the Defence of India Act for requisition of immovable property and that condition No. 4 of the said purported order had no application to the case of requisition of immovable property. In para. 9 of their petition they further submitted that by the said order the said flat was moreover purported to be requisitioned for an indefinite term, which, in any event, it was not competent for respondent 1 to do. They further stated that the power to determine the said indefinite term was by the said order delegated to and vested in respondent 2 which delegation or vesting was illegal and unauthorized and that the whole order was therefore vitiated and was illegal and void. They further submitted that for each of the reasons therein mentioned the said purported order issued by respondent 1 was without jurisdiction and was ultra vires, illegal and inoperative in law.