Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

PETITIONER: PROVINCE OF BOMBAY

Vs.
RESPONDENT: KUSALDAS S. ADVANI AND
OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/09/1950
FACTS OF THE CASE
THIS is an appeal from a judgment of the High court at Bombay and it
relates to the power of the High court to issue a writ of certiorari against the
province of Bombay to quash an order to requisition certain premises.
The material facts, as stated in the judgment of the High court, are these.
One Abdul Hamid Ismail was, prior to the 29th of January, 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.D. Vakil.
On the 29/01/1948, Ismail assigned his tenancy to the petitioner and two
others, the son and brother's daughter's son of the petitioner (the respondent).
All the three assignees were refugees from Sind. On the 4/02/1948, the
petitioner went into possession of the flat.
CONT.
On the 26/02/1948, the government of Bombay issued an order requisitioning
the flat under section 3 of the Bombay Land Requisition Ordinance (V of 1947)
which came into force on the 4/12/1947.
On the same day Dr. Vakil was informed that the government had allotted the
premises to Mrs. C. Dayaram who was also a refugee from Sind. Further orders
were issued authorising an Inspector to take possession of the premises.
On the 4/03/1948, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of certiorari and n
order under section 45 of the Specific Relief Act.
The petition was heard by Mr. Justice Bhagwati who, inter alia, granted the
writ against the province of Bombay and the secretary etc.
On appeal the appellate court confirmed the order as regards the issue of the
writ of certiorari against the appellant, but cancelled the order as regards the
other parties.
ISSEUES OF THE CASE
Having regard to the provisions of Ordinance V of 1947, whether the order in
question was quasi-judicial or only administrative ?
Whether a writ of certiorari can be. issued against the appellant, which for its
actions under the Ordinance, represents the Crown ?
Whether the order in question was made for a public purpose ?
OBSERVATION
It is established that the writ of certiorari does not lie to remove an
order merely ministerial, such as a warrant, but it lies to remove and
adjudicate upon the validity of acts judicial.
In this connection, the term 'judicial' does not necessarily mean acts of a
judge or legal tribunal sitting for the determination of matters of law,
but for the purpose of this question a judicial act seems to be an act
done by competent authority, upon consid- eration of facts and
circumstances, and imposing liability or affecting the rights of others.
JUDGEMENT
APPEAL ALLOWED