A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This landmark judgment in The State of Bombay v. Ali Gulshan (1955) 2 SCR 867 examines the constitutional legitimacy of requisitioning private premises under Section 6(4)(a) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 to accommodate a member of a foreign consulate. The core issue revolved around the interpretation of the term “public purpose” and whether such accommodation constituted a Union, State, or “any other public purpose”. The Supreme Court reversed the Bombay High Court’s decision and upheld the State’s action, holding that requisitioning the premises served a valid public purpose. The Court clarified that “public purpose” under the Constitution and relevant statutes can extend beyond strictly defined Union or State purposes. Importantly, it reaffirmed the doctrine of threefold classification: Union, State, and general public purpose. This case serves as a pivotal precedent in understanding the limits of State legislative competence vis-à-vis the Union’s exclusive domain, particularly in property requisition matters tied to foreign diplomacy. The Court rejected narrow statutory interpretations and established broader state autonomy in facilitating foreign relations at a functional level without infringing on Union powers.

Keywords: Bombay Land Requisition Act, Article 31, Public Purpose, Union Purpose, State Purpose, Property Requisition

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title
The State of Bombay v. Ali Gulshan

ii) Case Number
Civil Appeal No. 229 of 1953

iii) Judgement Date
October 4, 1955

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
S.R. Das (Acting C.J.), Bhagwati, Venkatarama Ayyar, Jafer Imam, and Chandrasekhara Aiyar JJ.

vi) Author
Justice Chandrasekhara Aiyar

vii) Citation
(1955) 2 SCR 867

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

• Article 31 of the Constitution of India

• Section 6(4)(a) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948

• Item 33 of List I, Item 36 of List II, and Item 42 of List III, Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any)
None explicitly overruled.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects
Constitutional Law, Property Law, Administrative Law, Public International Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute in this case centered on the constitutional validity of the requisition of a private premise under Section 6(4)(a) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. The requisition was made by the Government of Bombay to house a member of a foreign consulate. The respondent, Ali Gulshan, challenged this action in the Bombay High Court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution. The single judge ruled in favor of the State, declaring the requisition as fulfilling a public purpose. However, on appeal, the High Court reversed the decision, holding that since consular accommodation related to Union functions under Item 11 of List I, the State lacked the legislative competence to requisition property for such a purpose. This decision was then challenged before the Supreme Court through a civil appeal under Article 132(1). The case touched on federal legislative competence and the meaning of public purpose under Article 31, creating a precedent-setting moment in post-independence Indian jurisprudence.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The State of Bombay, under its powers derived from Section 6(4)(a) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, requisitioned a property owned by Ali Gulshan to house a member of the staff of a foreign consulate. The requisition order specified the purpose as public, falling within the state’s domain. Ali Gulshan filed a writ petition seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that the purpose for which the premises were requisitioned did not fall under the ambit of the State’s legislative competence, as it related to foreign consular affairs—a Union subject. The Single Bench upheld the order, but the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court reversed it, stating that the purpose was a Union one and hence outside State powers. The State of Bombay then appealed to the Supreme Court of India under Article 132(1) of the Constitution, which allowed appeals on substantial questions of law related to the Constitution.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the requisition of premises for housing a member of the staff of a foreign consulate qualifies as a public purpose under Section 6(4)(a) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948?

ii. Whether such requisition constitutes a Union purpose, State purpose, or any other public purpose as contemplated under the legislative framework of the Seventh Schedule?

iii. Whether the State Government has the competence to requisition property for a purpose allegedly falling within the Union List?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for the State of Bombay, led by M.C. Setalvad, Attorney General of India, argued that the Act in question was a valid exercise of legislative power under Item 36 of the State List and that the requisition was made for a “public purpose” that squarely fell within the State’s authority. They stressed that not every matter tangentially connected to foreign affairs becomes exclusively a Union subject. They submitted that requisitioning premises to accommodate consular staff had no express prohibition under any Union law and did not require parliamentary legislation. They invoked Article 31, which allows both Union and State to requisition property for public purposes, supporting the legislative competence of the State under the Bombay Land Requisition Act. Furthermore, they asserted that the concept of public purpose extended beyond Union and State purposes to include “any other public purpose” as contemplated under Item 42 of List III.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for the respondent, Rajinder Narain, contended that the requisition was for a Union purpose, given that consular relations fall within Item 11 of List I, and therefore, only Parliament could legislate on this matter. They argued that the phrase “any other public purpose” in the Act must be read ejusdem generis with “State purpose”, thus limiting the applicability of the provision. They further contended that since foreign consulates are directly tied to the Union’s diplomatic functions, the State’s action was ultra vires. The High Court had correctly held that the purpose was a Union one, which the State legislature could not cater to, even incidentally.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Article 31 – Pertains to the acquisition or requisitioning of property for public purposes and mandates compensation.
ii. Section 6(4)(a), Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 – Authorizes the State to requisition premises for a State or any other public purpose.
iii. Item 33, List I (Union List) – Acquisition/requisitioning of property for Union purposes.
iv. Item 36, List II (State List) – Acquisition/requisitioning of property except for Union purposes.
v. Item 42, List III (Concurrent List) – Laws for acquisition/requisition for Union, State, or any other public purpose.
vi. Article 73 – Union’s executive power over subjects in the Union List.
vii. Item 11, List I – Deals with consular, diplomatic, and trade representation.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i. The Supreme Court, through Justice Chandrasekhara Aiyar, held that requisitioning premises for housing a member of a foreign consulate staff serves a valid public purpose under Section 6(4)(a) of the Act. The Court ruled that public purpose has a broader connotation and need not be exclusively a Union or State purpose. The term encompasses a third category – general public purposes – distinguishable from specific Union or State obligations. Even assuming the requisition related to a Union purpose, it simultaneously fulfilled a State and public function. Thus, the State had valid legislative competence under Item 36, List II.

b. OBITER DICTA 

i. The Court emphasized that statutory interpretation should avoid rendering words redundant. Hence, “any other public purpose” must retain independent significance, beyond being confined to State purposes alone. It observed that activities may possess overlapping features – serving Union, State, and public interests simultaneously – and should not be mechanically boxed into exclusive categories.

c. GUIDELINES 

• The phrase “public purpose” includes State, Union, and general public welfare categories.

• A single act or policy may serve multiple purposes simultaneously – it need not be exclusively Union or State in character.

• Courts must avoid constructions that make statutory terms redundant or meaningless.

• Ejusdem generis rule applies narrowly and only when a clear genus exists.

• Legislative competence is judged not by incidental overlap but by the pith and substance of the Act.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirmed a broader and pragmatic interpretation of legislative competence under the Constitution. By recognizing the legitimacy of general public purposes distinct from strict Union or State functions, the Court enhanced the operational scope of State governments in facilitating non-exclusive matters such as foreign consulate logistics. The verdict advanced federal flexibility without infringing upon the exclusivity of the Union domain in foreign affairs. Moreover, the judgment established a constitutional understanding of public purpose not tethered to rigid compartments. This case remains a cornerstone in Indian administrative and constitutional law, frequently cited for its nuanced reading of federalism and statutory interpretation.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

[1] The State of Bombay v. Ali Gulshan, (1955) 2 SCR 867
[2] Tendolkar J.’s Judgment, Bombay High Court Appeal No. 110 of 1952 (Overturned)

b. Important Statutes Referred

[3] The Constitution of India, Article 31
[4] The Constitution of India, Article 73
[5] Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, Section 6(4)(a)
[6] Seventh Schedule, Items 11, 33, 36, and 42