JUDGMENT 1. THE petitioner, Ajit Kumar Prosad, is the owner of, a building at Darjeeling, known as "ajit Mansions" (formerly known as "stephen Mansions"). There are several flats, godowns and shops in the said building. 2. ONE of the flats, bearing No. 23, was let out by the petitioner to one Sri D. Bandyopadhyay, an officer of the Settlement Department, at Darjeeling, at a monthly rent of Rs. 120/ -. Towards the middle of the year 1959, the said Sri D. Bandyopadhyay was transferred from Darjeeling to Coochbehar, and respondent No. 6 Sardar Trilok Singh Broca succeeded him in office. The said Sardar Trilok Singh Broca went into possession of the flat, without any arrangement with the landlord Sardar Trilok Singh Broca has affirmed an affidavit in this Rule and in paragraph 4 of the said affidavit he says as follows: "as my predecessor-in-office left Darjeeling by reason of his transfer to Coochbehar, he vacated the flat and, as there was no other suitable accommodation available, allowed me to occupy the said flat with the hope that I shall be recognised as a tenant under the petitioner in place of my predecessor-in-office. I was tendering the monthly rent of Rs. 120/- to the petitioner's manager through my Revenue Officer and the rent thus tendered was accepted by him till August, 1959. " The petitioner, however, states in paragraph 4 of the petition, that he was receiving rent from Sri D. Bandapadhyay upto August, 1959 and rent receipts were granted in his name. I am not concerned in this Rule in finding out the correctness of either of the two versions but I am inclined to believe that the truth lies midway between the two stories, namely, that the respondent No. 6 after his unauthorised occupation of the flat was tendering rent in the name of D. Bandyopadhyay, whom the petitioner had inducted. 3. IT appears from the affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4, affirmed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, that the Deputy Commissioner of Darjeeling made various efforts to induce the petitioner to accept the respondent No. 6 as his tenant but the petitioner refused to do so. The petitioner, however, does not admit this. I am, however, inclined to accept the version of respondents No. 1 to 4 in this respect. 4. The petitioner, however, does not admit this. I am, however, inclined to accept the version of respondents No. 1 to 4 in this respect. 4. ON October 21, 1959, the petitioner received an order of requisition, dated September 29, 1959, whereby the aforesaid flat was requisitioned under section 3 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947, and he was directed to make over possession of the flat to the Land Acquisition Kanungo, Darjeeling, on October 24, 1959. Possession of the flat was taken as under the notice of requisition. The alleged public purpose for which the requisition was made appears from paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by the Special Land Acquisition Collector, from which I set out the material portion:- "I say that at present it is very difficult to get a suitable accommodation as there is a real scarcity of residential houses at Darjeeling. I was asked by the Deputy Commissioner Darjeeling to see whether there could be any other accommodation for Sri Broca. I found that none was so suitable except the present one, being very near to the office and convenient from all points of view. On report from me, the Deputy Commissioner requested the Government for issue of the order of requisition. Government issued the requisition order in respect of the flat in question On receiving the requisition order, the same was not immediately served. The Deputy Commissioner made a personal contact with the father of the petitioner if it was possible for him to accept Sri Broca as a tenant but the petitioner was found adamant and refused to accept Sri Broca as his direct tenant. I also heard from Sri Broca that his negotiations with the petitioner to accept him as a tenant also failed. As I found that the flat in question was very suitable for accommodation of a responsible Government Officer, and in view of the fact that to secure a good accommodation is extremely difficult, and further that the owner would not be in any way inconvenienced, since it was a flat generally let out to tenants, and, after all negotiations having failed the said requisitioned notice was served upon the petitioner. " 5. " 5. TRILOK Singh Broca, respondent No. 6, also filed an affidavit-in-opposition, in which he states as follows:- "the premises in question is also suitable for my accommodation as I can attend my office very quickly which is not very far away from this place. I made efforts to get a suitable accommodation for me in the locality which is convenient from all points of view but I failed. I approached my superior officer to approach the appropriate Government for requisitioning the flat for my accommodation at Darjeeling. The Government directed the Deputy Commissioner to negotiate first with the landlord and on failure, the premises should be requisitioned. Negotiation by the Deputy Commissioner with the petitioner to let out to me directly failed, as a result, the notice of requisition was served on the petitioner and the Land Acquisition Department gave possession of the same to me as an allottee of the Government. " The propriety of the order of requisition is being challenged in this Rule. 6. IT is now well settled that inspite of the provision in section 3 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947, that premises may be requisitioned if "it appears to the State Government that any premises in any locality are needed or are likely to be needed for a public purpose," the jurisdiction of the Court to enquire whether an order of requisition is supported by a public purpose remains. I have therefore to enquire objectively whether the requisition of the flat was made for a public purpose. Now, an attempt at exposition of the expression "public purpose" was made by Lord Dunedin in Hamabai Framjee Petit v. Secretary of State for India (1) (L. R. 42 LA. 44), in which his Lordship observed:- "the phrase, whatever else it may mean, must include a purpose, that is an object or aim, in which the general interest of the community, as opposed to the particular interest of individuals, is directly and vitally concerned Prima facie the Government are good judges of that. They are not absolute judges. They cannot say "sic volo Sicjubedo" (I desire it, therefore, I order it )." 7. They are not absolute judges. They cannot say "sic volo Sicjubedo" (I desire it, therefore, I order it )." 7. AND in the case of State of Bihar x. Sri Kameswar Singh (2) (A. I. R. 1952 S. C. 252) the Supreme Court observed on the same topic as follows :- "the definition of the expression 'public purpose' is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with the time and state of society and its needs. " I have to determine the "public purposes" if any, behind the order of requisition keeping in view the observations hereinbefore referred to. 8. RESPONDENT No. 6 is in the service of the West Bengal Government. There is, however, nothing to show that it is essential to provide him with residential accommodation, near his office, far the efficient performance of his duties. There is also nothing to show that accommodation is not at all available in the town of Darjeeling. From the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 6, it does not appear that he tried for a flat anywhere else in the town. He limited his efforts to find out living accommodation in his office locality, which would not only be suitable but convenient from all points of view. If he was too much selective by nature, it would be certainly difficult to please him. If Government servants in general become entitled to insist upon not only being provided with accommodation but being provided with accommodation according to their choice, private properties will be entirely at their mercy and they may claim to have accommodation, whenever it may please them. I do not think any public purpose will be served by conceding such a privilege to them. In the case of Satya Narayan Nathani v. State of West Bengal (3) (61 C. W. N. 420) Chakravartti, C. J., (Lahiri, J. agreeing with him) observed :- "a Government servant is undoubtedly a public servant in the broad sense of the term though very remotely a servant of the public and it may also be said that the public are interested in the proper discharge by a Government servant of the duties of his office. But where the conditions of a Government servant's service do not require that accommodation is to be provided for him or there is nothing to show that there is some special reason for which it is essential to provide him with residential facilities or to find accommodation for him in a particular locality in order that he may be enabled to perform or perform efficiently the duties of his office, I find it difficult to hold that the purpose of providing accommodation to a person merely because he is a Government servant and merely because he is in need of accommodation, is a purpose in which the public, who pay him by a salary for such services as he renders, are further interested, not to speak of being interested directly or vitally. I can, however, think of special cases. If, for example, it was considered expedient to provide accommodation to the members of a fire-brigade in the neighborhood of the fire station on the ground that they should be easily available and land situated near the fire-station was for that purpose acquired, I would be prepared to hold that the purpose would be a public purpose. Whether there were any special circumstances present in the case before us, does not appear." 9. FOR men and officers serving in an essential service it may be necessary, in the public good, to find out accommodation near their field of operation but there does not appear to be any public purpose involved in finding out accommodation for each and every Government servant, near their respective offices. Public administration does not suffer, if public officers have to walk a reasonable distance or have themselves conveyed to their offices. 10. THE respondent No. 6 is an officer in the Settlement department. There is no reason why he must be provided with living accommodation of his own choice near his office. This is all the more so because I find that non-availability of other accommodation for him has not been proved satisfactorily. It has not been established how his residence elsewhere than in the requisitioned premises will cause detriment to public service. For the reason aforesaid, I hold that there is no public purpose behind the requisition of the flat and I quash the order. Since the respondents Nos. It has not been established how his residence elsewhere than in the requisitioned premises will cause detriment to public service. For the reason aforesaid, I hold that there is no public purpose behind the requisition of the flat and I quash the order. Since the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 have already taken possession of the flat they must now de-requisition the flat and I command them so to do. This Rule is made absolute. Let a Writ of Mandamus issue commanding the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to derequisition the flat and make over vacant possession thereof to the petitioner. The respondents Nos. 1 to 4 must pay costs of this Rule to the petitioner which I assess at three gold mohurs.