ORDER : This application has been taken out, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of requisition and notice under S. 4(1)(a) of West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act. 1947 2. It is the petitioner's case that under a registered deed of lease dated 5th of January 1970 granted by the then owner, Pradip Kumar Roy and Gouri Bala Ray. Since deceased, the petitioner No.1, Pulin Krishna Roy became a lessee of the entire premises No. 167A to M. Rash Behari Avenue, Calcutta known as "Yasoda Bhawan" for a term of ten years commencing from 1st January, 1970 with an option for renewal for another period of 40 years. The petitioner No. 1 is collecting rents and issue of the said Yasoda Bhawan which islet out to several tenants. Hence the petitioner became a landlord within the meaning of West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the said Act." 3. The said Yasoda Bhawan had been requisitioned by the Government of India through the Executive Engineer. Bengal Central Public Works Department. Thereafter the owners of the said premises initiated proceedings for derequisition of the said premises and/or cancellation of requisition. In 1960 the matter was settled and under the agreed and in accordance with terms of settlement the Government of India agreed to derequisition the said Yasoda Bhawan in installments or by stages. The eight flats were derequisitioned immediately the remaining twenty-eight flats under requisition were derequisitioned as and when the officers of the Government retired from service. The last flat on 'K' Block of the said premises remained to be derequisitioned as the officer concerned wrongfully refused to deliver vacant possession. At that time the Respondent No.4, Rama Prosad Chakraborty, the Second Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta approached the petitioner and requested him for grant of a monthly tenancy in respect of the said flat of 'K' Block In his favour as be gave an assurance that the said flat would be derequisitioned in the near future. On March 2, 1979 the Estate Manager, Government of India, gave a notice that the said flat would be vacated on March 7, 1979 and issued notice to the Land Acquisition Collector requesting him to make arrangement for derequisition of the said flat on March 7. On March 2, 1979 the Estate Manager, Government of India, gave a notice that the said flat would be vacated on March 7, 1979 and issued notice to the Land Acquisition Collector requesting him to make arrangement for derequisition of the said flat on March 7. 1979 the Respondent No.2 also gave notice that the said the would be derequisitioned and the possession would be delivered on March 9, 1979 and in fact on March 9. 1979 the said flat was derequisitioned and possession thereof was delivered from the office of the First Land Acquisition Collector in the presence of witnesses. In fact a certificate for restoration of possession dated March 9. 1979 was also issued for and on behalf or the Land Acquisition Collector. 4. After getting into possession on March 9, 1979 the petitioner No. 1 entered into an agreement of monthly tenancy with the petitioner No, 2. Chitta Ranjan Pal and let out the said first and received a security deposit of Rs. 300/-. The said agreement is in writing and also a receipt has been given by the petitioner No. 1 for the said payment Since March 9, 1979 the said Pulin Krishna Roy is in possession and occupation of the said flat. He brought bill furniture and occupied the said flat and put be said flat under his own lock and key. Thereafter all on a sudden on June 7. 1979 at about 11-30 A M several persons representing themselves to be from the Office of the First Acquisition Collector, broke open the padlock which the petitioner No.2 had put in the entrance door of the Said flat and took out all the furniture of Chitta Ranjan Pal and put the said flat under a new lock and key put by them. The furniture taken out from the said flat were thrown aside in the courtyard of the said premises. 5. Pradip Kumar Roy and Gouri Bala Roy were and/or the owners of the said premises but they are not the landlord within the meaning of the said Act. the said Gouri Bala Roy died on 10th February, 1912. the respondents purported to requisition the said flat under an order bearing No. 4179 dated May. 20. 1979 signed by the First Land Acquisitioned Collector on June 4, 1979 which was addressed to the petitioner No. 2 as occupier of the said flat. the said Gouri Bala Roy died on 10th February, 1912. the respondents purported to requisition the said flat under an order bearing No. 4179 dated May. 20. 1979 signed by the First Land Acquisitioned Collector on June 4, 1979 which was addressed to the petitioner No. 2 as occupier of the said flat. Similar notice were addressed to Pradip Kumar Ray and Gauri Bala Roy at 7, Abhoy Mitra Street, Calcutta. The respondents also issued notice under S. 4(1)(a) of the said Act un June 4, 1979 directing the petitioner No.2 to vacate the said flat on or before June 7, 1979 by 10-30 AM. The petitioner's grievance is first of all that the said flat was not requisitioned for any public purpose nor any of such alleged public purpose has been disclosed in the said notice. According to the petitioner the existence of a public purpose is a condition precedent to the exercise of power and jurisdiction under the said Act in order to requisition any flat or premises. In this particular case there is existing no such public purpose hence the condition precedent for such requisition has not been complied with. Hence any order for requisition or notice to quit is illegal, void and without any jurisdiction. The respondents have never attempted to search for any alternative or similar accommodation in the City of Calcutta or in the neighbourhood. The purported requisition is motivated as it has been done with an ulterior purpose. It has been done at the instigation of respondent No. 4 who was vitally interested in getting the said flat. Although the said flat bas been let out to petitioner No. 2 as monthly tenant no order under S. 3(1) of the said Act bas been served on the petitioner No. 1. the landlord herein, which is in violation of S. 3(2) of the said Act. Under S. 4(1)(a) it is incumbent upon the respondents to give the petitioner No, 2 in occupation of the said flat, time to vacate the said flat within a period of ten days from the service of the said notice. 6. As indicated above it would appear that by notice dated 4th of June, 1979 the petitioner No 2 was asked to vacate on or before 7th of June, 1979 which is in gross violation of the provisions of the said Act. 6. As indicated above it would appear that by notice dated 4th of June, 1979 the petitioner No 2 was asked to vacate on or before 7th of June, 1979 which is in gross violation of the provisions of the said Act. Under S. 4(1)(aa) it is incumbent upon the respondents to give the petitioner No.2 time to remove his articles lying in the said flat within a period of fifteen day. But in the present case no such time was given to petitioner No.2 which is again in violation of (he provisions of the said Act. It ill the petitioner's definite case that the respondents did not serve any notice earlier until after putting the said flat under their lock and key and wrongfully removing the said articles therefrom The respondents being Public Officers are under an obligation to act in accordance with Jaw but instead they have taken the la w in their own bands and by force have taken the possession of the said flats in utter disregard to the specific provisions of the said Act. 7 it is the positive case of the petitioner her, re me that the flat was not requisitioned for any public purpose as envisaged under the raid Act. The said flat according to the petitioner has been taken forcibly without complying with the relevant provisions of law when there could be not urgency of obtaining possession of the said flat in view of the fact that the said flat is still lying vacant and it has not been given in occupation to the persons for whose benefit the said flat was requisitioned 8. Mr. Aninda Mitra with Mr. Jayants Mitra appeared on behalf of the petitioner find very strongly submitted that this Court should immediately put a stop to such high handed manner of harassing the public and for misuse of the powers purportedly exercised by the respondents in gross violation of the specific provisions of the statute under which the said flat has been purported to be requisitioned. From the notice dated 28th of May, 1979 which was signed on 4th June, 1979 it would appear that the imprint of the words landlord and tenant has been scored through and on that the word occupier has been written in hand. From the notice dated 28th of May, 1979 which was signed on 4th June, 1979 it would appear that the imprint of the words landlord and tenant has been scored through and on that the word occupier has been written in hand. Similarly from the notice which was purported to have been served on Pradip Kumar Roy and Gouri Bala Roy although dated 28th of May, 1979 was signed on 4th of June, 1979. it would appear that both the words 'landlord' and 'tenant' have been scored through and in that place the word 'owner' has been written by hand. Again from the notice dated 4th of June, 1979 which was served under S. 4 of the said Act. Chitta Ranjan Pal has been asked to vacate by 7th of June, 1979 which would clearly show that the provision of the aid Act has not been complied with by the respondents. Moreover as pointed out by Mr. Mitra the said flat has been purpoted to be requisitioned for the use of Ghandra Sekhar Bhattacharyya when there is no evidence that Sri Bhattacharyya is without any residential accommodation or that he is not an owner of a house or that he really needed such accommodation. There is also no averment that alternate accommodation was sought for but the respondents failed to get suitable accommodation for Sri Bhattacharyya. Sri Bhattacharyya is not a government employee. Even assuming he is a government employee but requirement of accommodation for a government employee is not a public purpose. To constitute a public purpose it should be in the opinion of the government that such accommodation is necessary in the interest of public purpose. There is no averment in the affidavit-in-opposition that the government formed such an opinion or that providing accommodation to Sri Bhattacharyya is necessary in the interest of public service. The opinion of the government that it is to necessary in the interest of public service is a condition precedent and in that report reference was made in a case reported in AIR 1974 SC 175 paragraphs 12 and 20. For the purpose of requiring premises for public purpose both the conditions must be satisfied i.e.. first accommodation sought for is for a government employee and secondly in the opinion of the government that in the interest of public service such accommodation must be provided for and requisitioned. For the purpose of requiring premises for public purpose both the conditions must be satisfied i.e.. first accommodation sought for is for a government employee and secondly in the opinion of the government that in the interest of public service such accommodation must be provided for and requisitioned. In the present case neither of the two conditions have been fulfilled. Hence the pre lent order of requisition is invalid. Unless and until there is a public purpose to in premise, cannot be requisitioned and such requisition would be had. Moreover, Mr. Mitra submitted that from the extremely quick manner in which the flat has been requisitioned it would show that the whole purpose of requisition the said flat was to benefit a particular person of the respondents' choice and/or favour. Moreover notice has been served on the landlord at all as required under S. 3(2) of the said Act. In the present Case the landlord is vitally affected by the said requisition al the owners have already granted a lease in favour of petitioner No. l who in turn has let out the said flat to petitioner No.2. Over and above, that the order for possession is also in violation of S. 4(1) of the said Act since the minimum time to be given therein has not been complied with as the provision of S. 4 of the said Act is mandatory and not merely directive. 9. In the case reported in AIR 19tH SC 1619 it bas been held that "where discretion is conferred upon a public authority coupled with an obligation the word 'may' which denotes discretion should be constituted to mean a command" 10. The occupier's flat cannot he forcibly vacated even after order of requisition has been passed validly and served on him except through due process of low, i.e. in due compliance with the procedure as prescribed under Ss. 4 and 9 of the said Act. The occupier's flat cannot he forcibly vacated even after order of requisition has been passed validly and served on him except through due process of low, i.e. in due compliance with the procedure as prescribed under Ss. 4 and 9 of the said Act. 10 this particular case the respondent not only did not give notice to the occupier but in a highhanded manner has taken the law in their own hand by throwing the petitioner furniture out in the courtyard without properly follows the procedure as laid down in the said Act and lastly, of ensures, the petitioner has taken the point that there has been Violation of natural justice as the under for requisition was passed without giving any opportunity to hearing either to the landlord or to the tenant. In this particular case no order has been issued at all on the landlord. Hence they had no opportunity to make any representation. 11. In the affidavit-in opposition affirmed by Bimal Kumar Bhattacharyya affirmed on behalf of the respondent it baa been stated that as Mr. Chandra Sekhar Bhattacharyya was urgently in need of an accommodation the said flat was requisitioned by the State Government in order to accommodate him which definitely amounted to a public purpose In the affidavit it has been stated that a Copy of the requisition order dated 4th June, 1979 was served on Pradip Kumar Roy and Gouri Bala Roy, owners of the said premises, on 6th June, 1979. By handing over the said notice when they refused to accept the said order and a notice under S 4(1)(a) was served on Chitta Ranjan Pal on 6th June, 1979 by affixing as Sri Chitta Ranjan Pal was not found in the premises. It is strange how such an affidavit could be affirmed by a responsible officer of the State of west Bengal 21st of August. 1979 when on 6th June. 1979 Gouri, Bala Roy had died. she could not have been served with the notice by affixation on her refusal to accept such service. 12. Section 2(c) of the west Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions Act. 1979 when on 6th June. 1979 Gouri, Bala Roy had died. she could not have been served with the notice by affixation on her refusal to accept such service. 12. Section 2(c) of the west Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions Act. 1947 defines the word 'landlord' and under S. (ff) 'public purpose' has been defined which includes providing residential accommodation for the employees of the State Government where requirement of the said accommodation is, in the opinion of the State Government necessary for the interest of public service. 13 Section 3(2) provides that notice of requisition shall be served on the landlord also where the said premises is let out to tenants. 14. Under S. 4(1)(a) the Collector may order the person in occupation of the premises to vacate the premises with in a period of ten days from the service of notice and under S. 4(aa) the landlord or the tenant may be given time to remove furniture within a period of fifteen days from the service of the notice and under the said provision the Collector may even extend such period upto two months by recording that reasons in writing. 15. Section 9 provides that in case orders are not complied with the Collector or any persons authorised by him in writing shall execute the order-if he is a Magistrate, enforce delivery of possession of the premises in respect of which the order has been made to himself or if be is not a Magistrate apply to a Magistrate or to the Commissioner of Police and the Magistrate or such Commissioner of Police may enforce delivery' of possession of such premises. 16. From the provisions as set out above it would appear clearly that the various provision of the said Act have not been complied with by the respondents. 17. In order to make the order of requisition valid and binding on the parties it is not only necessary that it should be for a public purpose but such purpose must be started in the order itself. It is open to the party aggrieved to challenge before a Court of law as to the nature of the purpose for which particular premises has been requisitioned simply because a persons is a government employee and he is in need of accommodation would not entitle the authorities to requisition a flat and mark it for a public purpose. It is open to the party aggrieved to challenge before a Court of law as to the nature of the purpose for which particular premises has been requisitioned simply because a persons is a government employee and he is in need of accommodation would not entitle the authorities to requisition a flat and mark it for a public purpose. 18. In this particular case, Mr. Bhattacharyya although a government employee, after retirement was appointed by the Government of West Bengal as a Special Officer of the Corporation of Calcutta. He being an employee at present of the Corporation of Calcutta cannot be held to be a government servant as in the case reported in AIR 1970 Calcutta 359 a Division Bench of this Court held that the Commissioner of Calcutta Corporation is not a government servant. Moreover there arc no facts to indicate that Mr. Bhattacharyya did not have a house of his own or that he was urgently in need of an official accommodation or that no other suitable accommodation could be found for Mr. Bhattacharya. A person who is already a owner of a house and is also in occupation of the said house any requisition made by the authorities for accommodating such a person cannot possibly be held for a public purpose. Moreover in this particular case it has been submitted by the petitioner that a special favour has been shown to Mr. Bhattacharyya by requisitioning the flat at yasoda Bhawan for his personal use. The personal comfort of a favoured person cannot he held to be a public purpose in which the general public is not interested at all. 19 The petitioner's Counsel most emphatically submitted that to is particular fiat was requisitioned definitely for a purpose which is not public but to confer an undue favour on Mr. Bhattacharya it is always open to the Court to examine and Consider whether a particular property has been requisitioned for a public purpose or not Before issuing such order the authorities concerned must apply their mind to the aspect of the public interest and pass necessary orders. 20. It would appear that the respondents have not complied with the various provisions of the Act and the respondents have also failed to make out a case of public purpose. Hence it is a befitting case where the rule must be made absolute and I make the rule absolute. 20. It would appear that the respondents have not complied with the various provisions of the Act and the respondents have also failed to make out a case of public purpose. Hence it is a befitting case where the rule must be made absolute and I make the rule absolute. 21. There will be a stay of operation of this order for a week from date. Rule made absolute.