Appeal No 229 of 1953
Appeal under Article 1321 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 Setalvad Attorney General of India Porus 110 868 A Mehta and R H Dhebar with him for the appellant
Rajinder Narain for the respondent
October 4
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR 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 premises 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 respondent in the Bombay High Court to restrain the State of Bombay from taking such action
On the bearing 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 the public purpose must be either a purpose of the Union or a purpose of the State and in this particular case the accommodation being required for housing a member of a foreign 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 requistition 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 un constitutional 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 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 arcticle 31 of the Constitution
The requisition or acquisition must be for a public purpose and there must be compensation
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 foreian 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 Irefers to acquisition or requisitioning of property for the purposes of the Union
Item 36 in the State List List II relates to acquisition or requisitioning of property except for the purposes of the Union subject to the provisions of entry 42 of List III
Item 42 of the Concurrent Legislative List List III speaks of 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 acquesition or requisition is neither the one nor the other but a public purpose
Acquisition of sites for the building of hospitals or educational institutions by private benefactors will be a Public purpose 870 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 scarcely any application
A part 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 distinct genus which must comprise more than one species before the rule can be applie 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 I 1 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 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 modern times are to protect the interests and promote the commercial affairs of the State which he represents and that his powers privileges 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 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 necessarily cease to be a State purpose or a gene ral 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


Summary:
Held that the Government of Bombay was 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 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 event 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 the purpose of the Union is within its competence under item 36 of the State List
An undertaking may have three different facets 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 necessarily 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