{"id":173638,"date":"1956-01-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1956-01-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-r-s-nanji-on-17-january-1956"},"modified":"2017-06-07T10:51:17","modified_gmt":"2017-06-07T05:21:17","slug":"the-state-of-bombay-vs-r-s-nanji-on-17-january-1956","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-r-s-nanji-on-17-january-1956","title":{"rendered":"The State Of Bombay vs R. S. Nanji on 17 January, 1956"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The State Of Bombay vs R. S. Nanji on 17 January, 1956<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1956 AIR 294, \t\t 1956 SCR 18<\/div>\n
Author: S J Imam<\/div>\n
Bench: Das, Sudhi Ranjan, Bhagwati, Natwarlal H., Jagannadhadas, B., Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P., Imam, Syed Jaffer<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE STATE OF BOMBAY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nR. S. NANJI.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n17\/01\/1956\n\nBENCH:\nIMAM, SYED JAFFER\nBENCH:\nIMAM, SYED JAFFER\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN\nBHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.\nJAGANNADHADAS, B.\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.\n\nCITATION:\n 1956 AIR  294\t\t  1956 SCR   18\n\n\nACT:\n Bombay\t Land  Requisition Act, 1948 (Bombay Act  XXXIII  of\n1948), s. 5 (1)-Requisition of premises by Bombay Government\nfor housing an officer of State Road Transport\tCorporation-\nWhether\t for a public purpose-Expression  'public  purpose'-\nMeaninq of Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950\t (Parliament\nAct  LXIV  of 1960), S.\t 19(1)(c)-Corporation  empowered  to\nprovide\t living\t accommodation\tfor  its  employees-Premises\nrequisitionedfor Corporation-Whether for a public purpose.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nIn exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of s.\n5 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 the Government of\nBombay\trequisitioned by an order dated 12th May  1952,\t the\npremises  specified therein, for a public  purpose,  namely,\nfor  bousiing  an  officer  of\tthe  State  Road   Transport\nCorporation  which is a public utility service.\t On  a\twrit\napplication under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed by\t the\nrespondent the requisition order was set aside by the Bombay\nHigh Court on the ground that the requisition was not for  a\npublic purpose and therefore could not have been made  under\ns. 5 of the Requisition Act.  On appeal by special leave  to\nthe Supreme Court.\n19\nHeld  (1) that in the circumstances of the present case\t the\nrequisition was for a public purpose and the impugned  order\nhad been wrongly set aside by the High Court;\n(2) the phrase 'Public purpose' includes a purpose, that is,\nan  object  or\taim, in which the general  interest  of\t the\ncommunity,   as\t opposed  to  the  particular  interest\t  of\nindividuals  is\t directly  and\tvitally\t concerned.   It  is\nimpossible  to\tdefine\tprecisely  the\texpression   'public\npurpose'.  In each case all the facts and circumstances will\nrequire to be closely examined to determine whether a public\npurpose has been established;\n(3)  the Corporation has power to provide for its  employees\nsuitable  conditions  of  service   including...............\nliving\taccommodation,\tplaces for rest and  recreation\t and\nother amenities vide s. 19(1) (c)  of  the  Road   Transport\nCorporation Act, 1950;\n(4)  the  provisions of the Road Transport  Corporation\t Act\nread as a whole lead to the conclusion that if the  premises\nspecified  in the impugned order had been requisitioned\t for\nthe  Corporation,  the\trequisition would have\tbeen  for  a\npublic purpose;\n(5)in  the present case the Corporation is a public  utility\nconcern\t and the general interest of the public is  directly\nand  vitally concerned with its activities and\tundertaking.\nProviding  living  accommodation  for  its  employees  is  a\nstatutory  activity of the Corporation and it  is  essential\nfor  it\t to provide such accommodation in  order  to  ensure\nefficient working of the road transport system and therefore\nthe impugned order was validly passed under the\t Requisition\nAct.\nHamabai\t Framjee.Petit\tv. Secretary of State for  India  in\nCouncil\t ([1914]  L.R. 42 I.A. 44), The State of  Bombay  v.\nBhonji Munji and Another<\/a> ([1955] 1 S.C.R. 777) and The State\nof Bombay v. Ali Gulshan<\/a> ([1955] 2 S.C.R. 867), referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
\nNo. 235 of 1954.\n<\/p>\n
On Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
\nthe  26th day of February 1953 of the Bombay High  Court  in
\nAppeal No. 120 of 1952 arising out of the Order dated the II
\nthe  day  of September, 1952 of the said High Court  in\t its
\nOrdinary Original Jurisdiction in Misc.\t Application No. 216
\nof 1952.\n<\/p>\n
M.C. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India (B.  Sen and R.  H.
\nDhebar, with him) for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Sri Narain Andley, J. B. Dadachanji and Rajinder Narain, for
\nthe respondent.\n<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
1956.  January 17.  The Judgment of the Court was  delivered
\nby
\nIMAMJ.–By  an\torder  dated  12th  May\t 1952,\t hereinafter
\nreferred  to  as the impugned order the\t Government  of\t the
\nState of Bombay requisitioned under section 5 of the  Bombay
\nLand  Requisition  Act, 1948 (Bombay Act  XXXIII  of  1948),
\nhereinafter referred to as the Requisition Act, the premises
\nspecified  therein.   The impugned order, so far  as  it  is
\nrelevant to the present appeal, stated,
\n  “Now,\t therefore, in exercise of the powers  conferred  by
\nsub-section (1) of section 5 of the Bombay Land\t Requisition
\nAct,  1948  (Bombay Act XXXIII of 1948)\t the  Government  of
\nBombay\tis  pleased  to requisition the\t said  part  of\t the
\nbuilding  for  a  public purpose,  namely,  for\t housing  an
\nOfficer\t of the State Road Transport Corporation which is  a
\npublic utility service”.\n<\/p>\n
  The respondent filed a writ application under Article\t 226
\nof  the\t Constitution  in  the Bombay  High  Court  and\t the
\napplication  was  beard by Tendolkar, J. who set  aside\t the
\nimpugned order.\t Against his decision the appellant appealed
\nand a Division Bench of the said Court affirmed the decision
\nof  Tendolkar,\tJ. The present appeal is  by  special  leave
\nagainst the decision of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
  The principal ground upon which the impugned order was set
\naside was that the requisition was not for a public  purpose
\nand therefore could not have been validly made under section
\n5 of the Requisition Act.\n<\/p>\n
   On  behalf  of the appellant,  the  Attorney-General\t has
\nurged  that  in the circumstances of the present  case,\t the
\nrequisition was for a public purpose and the impugned  order
\nhad been wrongly set aside by the High Court.  In support of
\nhis submission he relied upon certain provisions of the Road
\nTransport Corporations Act, 1950 (LXIV of 1950), hereinafter
\nreferred to as the Act, the decision of the Privy Council in
\nthe case of Hamabai Framjee Petit v. Secretary of State\t for
\nIndia in Council(1) and the decisions of this Court in
\n(1)  [1914] L.R. 42 I.A. 44.\n<\/p>\n
21<\/span><\/p>\n
The  State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji and Another<\/a>(1) and\t The
\nState  of  Bombay v. Ali Gulshan (Civil Appeal\tNo.<\/a>  229  of
\n1953)  decided on the 4th of October 1955(2).  On the  other
\nhand,  Mr.  Andley, on behalf of the  respondent,  contended
\nthat to requisition the premises to house an employee of the
\nState Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as
\nthe  Corporation, could not be regarded as a public  purpose
\nbecause\t that was a matter in which the general interest  of
\nthe  community was not directly and vitally  concerned.\t  He
\nurged  that  although their Lordships of the  Privy  Council
\nrightly\t  approved   the  observations\tof   Batchelor,\t  J.
\nconcerning  the expression ‘public purpose’, they  erred  in
\ntheir  decision in Hamabai’s case.  In any event,  Hamabai’s
\ncase  could  be distinguished as in that case  there  was  a
\nscheme\tfor  constructing  houses  for\tGovernment  servants
\ngenerally  and not procuring residential  accommodation\t for
\none  particular\t individual.  The validity of  the  impugned
\norder was also questioned by him on the ground that  nothing
\nhad been established to prove that by housing an officer  of
\nthe  Corporation in the requisitioned premises the needs  or
\nthe  purposes of the Corporation would be served or that  it
\nwould contribute to the efficiency of the officer concerned.
\n   Before Tendolkar, J. two points bad been raised (1)\tthat
\nno enquiry, as required by section 5 of the Requisition Act,
\nwas held and (2) that the impugned order was invalid as\t the
\nrequisition  was  not  for a  public  purpose.\t The  former
\nquestion was decided against the respondent while the latter
\nwas decided in his favour.  In appeal, the first point\tdoes
\nnot appear to have been put forward as there is no reference
\nto it in the judgments of the learned Judges of the Division
\nBench.\t In  this  Court the only point\t argued\t was  as  to
\nwhether\t the  requisition was for a public purpose  or\tnot.
\nBefore proceeding to consider that question it is  necessary
\nto  make  some\treference  to  the  purpose  for  which\t the
\nCorporation is established, its compo. sition, the extent of
\ncontrol\t exercised by the State Government over it  and\t its
\nactivities.\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1965] 1 S.C.R. 777.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1955] 2 S.C.R. 867.\n<\/p>\n
22<\/span><\/p>\n
It  was\t not disputed before us that the  Corporation  is  a
\npublic utility concern and is governed by the provisions  of
\nthe Act.  The purpose for which the Corporation was  created
\nmay be gathered from the provisions of section 3 of the\t Act
\nwhich  enables\ta  State  Government  to  establish  a\tRoad
\nTransport  Corporation\thaving\tregard\tto  the\t  advantages
\noffered to the public, trade and industry by the development
\nof road transport, the desirability of coordinating any form
\nof  road transport with any other form of transport and\t the
\ndesirability  of extending and improving the facilities\t for
\nroad transport in any area and of providing an efficient and
\neconomical system of road transport service.
\n  The  Corporation  consists  of  a  Chairman  and   members
\nappointed by the State Government who are removable by\tthat
\nauthority.   Where  capital is subscribed by  the  issue  of
\nshares under section 23 of the Act provision is made for the
\nrepresentation\tof the share-holders in the Corporation\t and
\nthe  manner  in which they are to be elected  in  accordance
\nwith rules to be framed under the Act.\tIts Chief  Executive
\nOfficer\t or General Manager and its Chief  Accounts  Officer
\nare  to\t be appointed by the State  Government.\t  The  other
\nofficers and servants are to be appointed by the Corporation
\nbut the conditions of appointment and service and the scales
\nof pay shall be determined by regulations made under the Act
\nsubject\t to the provisions of section 34,  which  authorises
\nthe  State  Government\tto  issue  directions  and   general
\ninstructions  to the Corporation and these instructions\t may
\ninclude\t  directions   relating\t to  the   recruitment\t and
\nconditions of service.\n<\/p>\n
  The  Corporation  is under the effective  control  of\t the
\nState  Government.   In addition to what  has  already\tbeen
\nmentioned   when  referring  to\t the  composition   of\t the
\nCorporation, the capital of the Corporation may be  provided
\nby  the Central and State Governments in such proportion  as
\nis  agreed between them.  When no such capital is  provided,
\nthe  Corporation may raise capital, as is authorised by\t the
\nState  Government,  by issue of shares.\t  These\t shares\t are
\nguaran-\n<\/p>\n
23<\/span><\/p>\n
teed by that Government.  The budget of the Corporation\t has
\nto be submitted to the State Government for approval and its
\naccounts  are to be audited by an auditor appointed by\tthat
\nGovernment.  The balance of the net profits, after providing
\nfor  various matters mentioned in section 30 of the Act,  is
\nto  be made over to the State Government for the purpose  of
\nroad development.  The Corporation can be superseded by\t the
\nState  Government or that Government may, after\t an  enquiry
\nunder section 36, authorize a person by notification in\t the
\nofficial Gazette to take over the Corporation and administer
\nits affairs during the period the notification is in force.
\n  The activities of the Corporation are manifold in  pursuit
\nof which there is a statutory duty to so exercise its powers
\nas  to\tprovide,  secure  or promote  the  provision  of  an
\nefficient,  adequate,  economical and  properly\t coordinated
\nsystem\tof road transport in the State or part of it and  in
\nany extended area (vide section 18 of the Act).\t The  powers
\nof  the\t Corporation are stated in section 19  of  the\tAct.
\nThese  powers, although not exhaustive, cover a wide  field.
\nParticular  reference  need be made only to  some  of  them.
\nSection 19(1) provides:\n<\/p>\n
  “Subject  to\tthe provisions of this\tAct,  a\t Corporation
\nshall have power:-\n<\/p>\n
(a)……………….. (b)………………..\n<\/p>\n
(c)to  provide\tfor  its employees  suitable  conditions  of
\nservice\t including  fair wages, establishment  of  provident
\nfund,  living accommodation, places for rest and  recreation
\nand other amenities”.\n<\/p>\n
  Section 19(2) excluding the explanation to clause (a)\t and
\nsome  clauses with which we are not  immediately  concerned,
\nstates,
\n  “Subject  to\tthe  provisions\t of  this  Act,\t the  powers
\nconferred by subsection (1) shall include power:-\n<\/p>\n
(a)  to manufacture, purchase, maintain and  repair  rolling
\nstock,\tvehicles, appliances, plant, equipment or any  other
\nthing  required for the purpose of any of the activities  of
\nthe Corporation referred to in sub-section (1).\n<\/p>\n
24<\/span><\/p>\n
  (b)\tto acquire and hold such property, both movable\t and
\nimmovable,  as\tthe Corporation may deem necessary  for\t the
\npurpose of any of the said activities and to lease, sell  or
\notherwise transfer any property held by it.\n<\/p>\n
(d)  to purchase by agreement or to take on lease  or  under
\nany  form  of  tenancy any land and to\terect  thereon\tsuch
\nbuildings as may be necessary for the purpose of carrying on
\nits undertaking.”\n<\/p>\n
   The provisions of the Act read as a whole lead us to\t the
\nconclusion  that if the premises specified in  the  impugned
\norder  had  been  requisitioned\t for  the  Corporation,\t the
\nrequisition  would have been for a public  purpose.   Indeed
\nthe  learned Judges of the High Court were of  this  opinion
\nand  Mr. Andley did not contend to the contrary.   According
\nto  him,  in  this case., the requisition was  not  for\t the
\nCorporation  but for an employee of the Corporation and\t for
\nhis convenience which could not be a public purpose.
\n  The  expression  ‘public purpose’ has been  considered  in
\nmany cases and it is unnecessary to refer to them except the
\nthree  cases  cited by the Attorney-General.   In  Hamabai’s
\ncase(1)\t the  observation  of Batchelor, J.  to\t the  effect
\n“General  definitions  are, I think, rather  to\t be  avoided
\nwhere  the avoidance is possible, and I make no\t attempt  to
\ndefine precisely the extent of the phrase ‘public  purposes’
\nin  the lease; it is enough to say that, in my opinion,\t the
\nphrase,\t whatever else it may mean, must include a  purpose,
\nthat is, an object or aim, in which the general interest  of
\nthe  community,\t as opposed to the  particular\tinterest  of
\nindividuals, is directly and vitally concerned” received the
\napproval  of the Privy Council.\t Their\tLordships,  however,
\nrejected  the  contention  that there cannot  be  a  ‘public
\npurpose’ in taking land if that land when taken is no it  in
\nsome  way  or other made available to the public  at  large.
\nThis  contention had been raised because the Government\t had
\nresumed\t lands, which had been the subject of a lease and  a
\nsana , the terms of which permitted the Government to resume
\nthe lands for any public purpose, with a view to erect
\n(1)  [1914] L.R. 42 I.A. 44.\n<\/p>\n
25<\/span><\/p>\n
thereon dwelling houses for the use of Government  officials
\nas their private residence on adequate rent.  The concluding
\nportion\t of the judgment of the Privy Council  is  important
\nand  needs to be quoted.  It stated, “But here, so far\tfrom
\nholding\t them to be wrong, the whole of the learned  judges,
\nwho  are thorough conversant with the conditions  of  Indian
\nlife,  say  that they are satisfied that the scheme  is\t one
\nwhich  will  redound  to  public  benefit  by  helping\t the
\nGovernment to maintain the efficiency of its servants.\tFrom
\nsuch  a conclusion their Lordships would be slow to  differ,
\nand  upon  its\town statement it commends  itself  to  their
\njudgment”.   In Bhanji Munji’s case(1) the  requisition\t was
\nfor housing a person having no housing accommodation.  After
\nconsidering the affidavits, the facts and the  circumstances
\nof the case, Bose, J . observed “The Constitution authorizes
\nrequisition  for  a  public purpose.  The  purpose  here  is
\nfinding\t accommodation for the homeless.  If,  therefore,  a
\nvacancy is allotted to a person who is in fact homeless, the
\npurpose\t is  fulfilled”.   In  Ali  Gulshan’s  case(2)\t the
\nrequisition  was for the purpose of housing a member of\t the
\nstaff  of  a foreign Consulate.\t This Court  held  that\t the
\nrequisition was for a State purpose, which it is needless to
\nsay must be regarded as a public purpose.  An examination of
\nthese and other cases leads us to the conclusion that it  is
\nimpossible  to\tprecisely  define  the\texpression   ‘public
\npurpose’.  In each case all the facts and circumstances will
\nrequire to be closely examined in order to determine whether
\na  ‘public  purpose’ has been established  Prima  facie\t the
\nGovernment is the best judge as to whether ‘public  purpose’
\nis served by issuing a requisition order, but it is not\t the
\nsole  judge.   The courts have the jurisdiction\t and  it  is
\ntheir  duty to determine the matter whenever a\tquestion  is
\nraised\twhether\t a  requisition order is or  is\t not  for  a
\n‘Public\t purpose’.  The cases of Hamabai, Bbanji  Munji\t and
\nAli  Gulshan  are  merely illustrative.\t  In  each  of\tthem
\nprimarily  the person directly and vitally concerned  -would
\nbe the person to whom the residential accommodation would be
\n(1)  [1955] 1 S.C.R. 777.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1955] 2 S.C.R. 867,
\n4<\/span>
\n26<\/span>
\nallotted with which prima facie the general interest of\t the
\ncommunity  would not be directly concerned at all.  We\tmust
\nregard Hamabai’s case as a decision to the ,effect that\t the
\ngeneral\t  interest  of\tthe  community\twas   directly\t and
\nvitallyconcerned  with\tthe  efficiency\t of  the  Government
\nservants  because  it would be to its benefit to  have\tsuch
\nservants and, therefore, providing living accommodation\t for
\nthem  was a public purpose.  The decision in  Bhan   Munji’s
\ncase  must be read as one in which the general\tinterest  of
\nthe  community was directly and vitally concerned with\tpre-
\nvention of lawlessness and disease and to house the homeless
\nin  order to avoid such a contingency was a public  purpose.
\nIn Ali Gulshan’s case a State purpose was served because the
\nState Government was interested in its own trade or commerce
\nand  in the efficient discharge of his duties by  a  foreign
\nConsul who would be concerned with such trade or commerce.
\n  In  the  present  case  it is\t possible  to  construe\t the
\nimpugned order as a requisition on behalf of the Corporation
\nas it does not name any individual for whom the\t requisition
\nis  being made.\t In other words the  requisitioned  premises
\nwere at the disposal of the Corporation to house one of\t its
\nofficers to be named later on.\tApart from that, there is  a
\nstatutory power in the Corporation under section 19 (1)\t (c)
\nof the Act to provide living accommodation for its employees
\nand under section 14 the Corporation appoints such number of
\nits officers and servants as it considers necessary for\t the
\nefficient performance of its functions.\t It may be  assumed,
\ntherefore, that the Corporation appoints only such  officers
\nas  are needed for the efficient discharge of its  functions
\nand  that the State Government was requested to\t requisition
\nsome premises as living accommodation for one of them  whose
\nposting\t at Bombay was necessary.  Indeed the  affidavit  of
\nMr.  Nadkarni,\tAccommodation Officer of the  Government  of
\nBombay,\t states that the official of the Corporation has  to
\nperform\t his  duties  in  Bombay.   Having  regard  to\t the
\nprovisions of section 19 (2) (a)   and\t(b) of the Act,\t the
\npower in the Corporation
\n27<\/span>
\nto  provide living accommodation for its employees  must  be
\nregarded,  as one of its statutory  activities\tundersection
\n19(1).\tTheword ‘acquire’ may include the power to  purchase
\nby agreement but is wide enough to enable the Corporation to
\nrequest\t the State Government to acquire property under\t the
\nLand Acquisition Act (I of-] 894) in order to provide living
\naccommodation  for  its employees.  The\t activities  of\t the
\nCorporation under section 19 (1) are so interlinked with its
\nsuccessful functioning as a Road Transport Corporation\tthat
\nrequisitioning\tor  acquisition of property to\tadvance\t and
\nensure\tthose  activities must be regarded as for  a  public
\npurpose.  It would not be sufficient to merely establish the
\nCorporation.   It  has\tto have an  adequate  and  efficient
\nstaff,\tliving\taccommodation forwhom would be\tan  absolute
\nneed  of the Corporation. Its officers have to be  efficient
\nin  the discharge oftheir duties, for upon them depends\t the
\nsuccessful  working of the road transport system upon  which
\nthe  public  must  rely and thus it would  be  directly\t and
\nvitally\t concerned with the efficiency of ‘the employees  of
\nthe Corporation.  It was suggested that a line must be drawn
\nsomewhere, otherwise there was no guarantee to what  lengths
\nthe  powers  of\t requisition  might  be\t exercised  by\t the
\nGovernment.   It is sufficient to say that each\t case  would
\nhave to be decided upon the facts and the circumstances\t ap-
\npearing\t therein.  Here the Corporation is a public  utility
\nconcern\t and  the  general  interest  of  the  community  is
\ndirectly  and vitally concerned with its activities and\t its
\nundertaking.   A  breakdown  in\t the  Organisation  of\t the
\nCorporation,  leading to dislocation of the  road  transport
\nsystem would create a chaotic condition to the detriment  of
\nthe   interest\t of   the   community.\t  Providing   living
\naccommodation  for its employees is a statutory activity  of
\nthe  Corporation and it is essential for it to provide\tsuch
\naccommodation in order to ensure an efficient working of the
\nroad  transport system and it must, therefore, be held\tthat
\nthe impugned order was validly passed under the\t Requisition
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
  In the result the appeal is allowed and the decision
\n28<\/span>
\nof the High Court is set aside.\n<\/p>\n
Costs  in  the\tappeal in this Court shall be  paid  by\t the
\nappellant  to  the  respondent\tas  directed  by  the  order
\ngranting Special Leave.\t Each party, however, will bear\t his
\nown costs in the High Court.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The State Of Bombay vs R. S. Nanji on 17 January, 1956 Equivalent citations: 1956 AIR 294, 1956 SCR 18 Author: S J Imam Bench: Das, Sudhi Ranjan, Bhagwati, Natwarlal H., Jagannadhadas, B., Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P., Imam, Syed Jaffer PETITIONER: THE STATE OF BOMBAY Vs. RESPONDENT: R. S. NANJI. DATE OF […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-173638","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe State Of Bombay vs R. S. Nanji on 17 January, 1956 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-r-s-nanji-on-17-january-1956\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State Of Bombay vs R. S. Nanji on 17 January, 1956 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-r-s-nanji-on-17-january-1956\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1956-01-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-07T05:21:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-r-s-nanji-on-17-january-1956#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-r-s-nanji-on-17-january-1956\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State Of Bombay vs R. S. Nanji on 17 January, 1956\",\"datePublished\":\"1956-01-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-07T05:21:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-r-s-nanji-on-17-january-1956\"},\"wordCount\":2939,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-r-s-nanji-on-17-january-1956#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-r-s-nanji-on-17-january-1956\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-r-s-nanji-on-17-january-1956\",\"name\":\"The State Of Bombay vs R. S. Nanji on 17 January, 1956 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1956-01-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-07T05:21:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-r-s-nanji-on-17-january-1956#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-r-s-nanji-on-17-january-1956\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-r-s-nanji-on-17-january-1956#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State Of Bombay vs R. S. Nanji on 17 January, 1956\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The State Of Bombay vs R. S. Nanji on 17 January, 1956 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-r-s-nanji-on-17-january-1956","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State Of Bombay vs R. S. Nanji on 17 January, 1956 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-r-s-nanji-on-17-january-1956","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1956-01-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-07T05:21:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-r-s-nanji-on-17-january-1956#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-r-s-nanji-on-17-january-1956"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State Of Bombay vs R. S. Nanji on 17 January, 1956","datePublished":"1956-01-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-07T05:21:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-r-s-nanji-on-17-january-1956"},"wordCount":2939,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-r-s-nanji-on-17-january-1956#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-r-s-nanji-on-17-january-1956","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-r-s-nanji-on-17-january-1956","name":"The State Of Bombay vs R. S. Nanji on 17 January, 1956 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1956-01-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-07T05:21:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-r-s-nanji-on-17-january-1956#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-r-s-nanji-on-17-january-1956"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-r-s-nanji-on-17-january-1956#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State Of Bombay vs R. S. Nanji on 17 January, 1956"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/173638","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=173638"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/173638\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=173638"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=173638"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=173638"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}