Kishan Chand Arora versus Commissioner Op… — Writ and Judicial Review | Supreme Court (1961)

Kishan Chand Arora versus Commissioner Op… — Writ and Judicial Review | Supreme Court (1961)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None. The petition failed and was dismissed with costs in accordance with the opinion of the majority; no mandamus issued (the dissenting judges would have restrained further prosecutions for want of licence).

Issue for consideration

Whether s. 39 of the Calcutta Police Act, 1866, by vesting discretionary power in the Commissioner of Police to grant or refuse eating-house licences without statutory criteria, constitutes an unreasonable restriction on the petitioner's fundamental right to carry on trade under Art. 19(1)(g) read with Art. 19(6). +3 more

Court's answer

Read as a whole, s. 39 canalises the Commissioner's discretion: he must satisfy himself on three matters - that the applicant is in actual and effective control and possession of the premises (and so is the keeper), that the keeper is of good behaviour, and that he can prevent drunkenness and disorder - and if satisfied on these the discretion is to be exercised in favour of grant; the discretion is therefore neither absolute nor arbitrary.

Ratio / Principle

Section 39 does not constitute an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to carry on trade guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(g); the constitutional attack on the section fails.

Key takeaways

The Commissioner, in passing an order under s. 39, acts administratively: though bound to act reasonably, he is under no duty to act judicially; consequently, in the setting of this police licensing provision, the mere absence of provision for a hearing or for communicating reasons for refusal does not make s. 39 an unreasonable restriction on a fundamental right.ratio¶84
An applicant who believes he fulfils the three conditions but is unreasonably refused is not without remedy: he can apply to the High Court under Art. 226, compelling disclosure of the reasons for refusal, and if those are extraneous or not germane to the three matters under s. 39 the High Court will compel the Commissioner to act within the scope of s. 39.ratio¶86

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Supreme Court of India, Petition No. 22 of 1960 (under Art. 32), decided December 9, 1960 - Kishan Chand Arora v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta. Constitutionality of s. 39 of the Calcutta Police Act, 1866 (discretionary licensing of eating houses by the Police Commissioner) tested against Arts. 19(1)(g) and 19(6). Majority (Kapur, Gajendragadkar and Wanchoo JJ.; judgment delivered by Wanchoo J.) read the pre-Constitution section as a whole: the licence discretion is guided by two statutory objects - securing good behaviour of keepers and preventing drunkenness and disorder - plus, by necessary implication, actual and effective control and possession of the premises; the Commissioner acts administratively, bound to act reasonably but not judicially, so the absence of provision for a hearing or for reasons is not, in this setting, an unreasonable restriction; an unreasonably refused applicant has remedy under Art. 226; alleged mala fides rejected. Sinha C.J. and Subba Rao J. dissented: 'may ... at his discretion' confers uncontrolled, uncanalised power; the applicant gets no opportunity to prove fitness, no reasons are required, and there is no appeal; s. 39 is void as infringing Art. 19(1)(g) both substantively and procedurally, and they would have issued a mandamus restraining prosecutions for want of licence. By court: petition dismissed with costs following the majority.

135

3 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Article 136 of the Constitution confers ·a wide dis- z96o cretionary power on this Court to entertain appeals· . 'd d ,. b h Sanwat Singh in suitable cases not oth,erw1se prov1 e ior y t e .,. Othe" Constitution. It is implicit in the reserve power that v. it ca.nnot be exhaustively defined, but decided cases state of Rajasthan do not permit interference unless "by disregard to the forms of legal process or some violation of the prin- Subba Rao J. ciples of natural justice or otherwise, substantial and grave injustice has been done". Though Art. 136 is couched in widest terms, the practice of this Court is not to interfere on questions of fact except iu exceptional cases when the finding is such that it shocks the conscience of the court. In the present case, the High Court has not contravened any of the principles laid down in Shea Swarup's case(') and has also given reasons which led it to hold that the acquittal was not jilstified. In the circumstances, no case has ?een made out for our not accepting the said findmgs.

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed,.

KISHAN CHAND ARORA

v.

COMMISSIONER OP POLICE, CALCUTT A

December 9.

(B. P. SINHA, c. J., J. L. KAPUR, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO and K. N. WANCHoo, JJ.)

Eating House-Power to grant license-Discretion vested in Police Commissioner - Constitutionality - Calcutta Police Act, r866 (IV of r866), s. 39-Constitution of India, Arts. r9(r)(g), r9(6).

By s. 39 of the Calcutta Police Act, 1866, "The Commis- s_ioner of Police, may, at his discretion from time t~ time, grant licenses to the keepers of such houses or places of public resort and entertainment as aforesaid for which no licence as is specified in the Bengal Excise Act, 1909, is required upon such conditions,

(1) (1934) L.R. 61 I.A. 398.

136

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1961]

Kishan Chand Aro1a

v.

Com111issioner oj Police, Calcutta

to be inserted in every such license, as he, with the sanction of the said State Government from time to time shall order, for securing the good behaviour of the keepers of the said houses or places of public resort or entertainment, and the prevention of drunkenness and disorder among the persons frequenting or using the same; and the said licenses may be granted by the said Commissioner, for any time not exceedipg one year".

The petitioner, whose application for a license in respect of ·an eating house was refused by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, under the section, challenged its constitutional validity on the ground that it conferred arbitrary and unguided powers on the Commissioner to grant or refuse a license without hearing the applicant and was, therefore, an unreasonable restriction on his fundamental right to carry on his trade guaranteed by Art. rg(r)(g) of the Constitution.

Held, (per Kapur, Gajendragadkar and Wanchoo, JJ.), that in order to decide whether a provision in a pre-Constitution statute, like the one in question, satisfies the test of constitutionality laid down by Art. rg(r)(g) read with Art. r9(6) of the Constitution, the impugned section has to be read as a whole in a fair and reasonable manner and it should not be declared void simply because the considerations relevant to those Articles are not immediately apparent from its language. It is not correct to say that the discretion conferred on the Commissioner by the first part of the section is absolute and that the question of imposing the two conditions mentioned by the second part can arise only after the grant of the license. The two parts, read together, can lead only to the conclusion that the discretion vested in the Commissioner is guided by the two conditions mentioned in the section, namely, the securing of good behaviour and the prevention of drunkenness and disorder and a third by necessary implication, that the applicant must have actual and effective control and possession of the place where he keeps the eating house.

Section 39 of the Calcutta Police Act, 1866, therefore, confers no arbitrary or uncanalised discretion on the Commissioner, unguided by any criteria, and does not constitute an unreason- able restriction on the fundamental right to carry on trade under Art. rg(r)(g) of the Constitution.

Rustom ]amshed Irani v. Harley Kennedy, (1901) I.L.R. 26 Born. 386, inapplicable.

Although tjlere can be no <loubt that procedural provi•ions of a statute also enter into the verdict as to its reasonableness, it cannot be laid down as a general proposition that if a licensing statute omits to provide for a hearing or for the giving of reasons for refusal, such ornission must necessarily constitute an unreason·able restriction on a fundamental right. The Commissioner in passing an order under the section acts administratively and although he must act reasonably. there is no duty cast on him

/ .•·

137

I I i , 11

3 S.C.R~ SUPREME COURT·REPORTS

'\ ' . '.' .-.·.

,- - ,

to act judicially. Regard being had to the setting in which the •960 impugned section appears in the Act and the circumstances of this case, it could not be said thats. 39 of the Act was such a KidH CA.Rd restriction. · Aro1•

Aro1• . Y'.

State of• Madtas v. V. G. Row, [1952] S.C.R. 597, Nagendta . Y'. Nath B01a v. The Commissioner of Hills Division. and Appeals, C""'.'"""oner of Assam, [1958] S.C.R. 1240. Nakkuda Ali v. M. F. De S. Jayarat1111, Polie1: Calcu1t4 1951 A.C. 66 and Exptess Nt11Jspapers (P.) Ltd. v. "The Union of India, (1959] S.C.R. 12, relied on.

If an applicant thinks that he has fulfilled the three conditions and the Commissioner has unreasonably rejected his application, he has his remedy nnder Art. 226 of the Constitution. · . . .

Per Subba Rao; J.-It is well settled that restrictions on fundamental rights must not be arbitrary or excessive or beyond what is required, in the· interest 'Of the general public. Such restrictions have to be tested both from the substantive and the procedural aspects. An nncontrolled or uncanalised power constitutes an unreasonable restriction. Even thongh the ·statute may clearly express the legislative policy that cannot be enough unless it provides a suitable machinery for implementation of · that policy in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Restriction~ are justiciable and in deciding whether a restriction is reasonable or not, the Court cannot attach much importance to the fact that ·the impugned statute vests discretion in the State Government or a high officer. · Nor can the distinction · between an administrative authority and a. judicial one have · much relevance except that the Court may be more inclined to uphold the discretion if vested in an impartial judicial authority rather than in an administrative one.

State of Mail1as v. V. G. Row, [1952] S.C.R. 597, Thakur Raghubit Singh v. Cou1t of Watds, Ajmer, [1953] S.C.R. 1049 and M/s. Dwatka Ptasad Laxmi Narain v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, [1954] S.C.R. 803, relied on.

Babula! Chandta v. Chief Justice and Judges, High Courl of Patna, Al.R. 1954 S.C. 524, Harishankar Bagla v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [1955] l S.C.R. 380, Union of India v. Eliana Mal Gulzarimal Ltd.,· (1960]2 S.C.R. 627 and Mineral Development Lt.l., State of Bihar, (1960] 2 S.C.R. 609, considered ..

Thus viewed, the plain words of the impugned section cannot be said to Jay down any policy reasonably capable of controlling the discretion vested in the Commissioner.

The word 'may' coupled with the words 'at his discretion' in the first part of the section clearly emphasises the intention of the Legislature to confer absolute power on the Commissioner. The second part deals with the nature of the conditions to be inserted in the license .. • .But the scope of the discrotion to issue . 18

. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] - \ '".¹ 9⁶⁰ . \ the license and the power to impose conditions in a license are · two different matters. KisTr.an CTr.iJnd Arora;· Even if the two conditions mentioned. in the second part . v. could.be read into the first, the discretion conferred by the sec- Commissioner of tion would still. b<: arbitrary sin<:e the section neither re.quires Police C•l<tt• that the Comm1ss1oner should give reasonable opportumty to ' the applicant to prove that he satisfies both the test> prescribed by it nor that he should give reasons for refusing the license and no appeal.is provided for. Consequently, from the substantive as much as the procedural aspect, s. 39 of the Act infringes the fundamental right of . the petitioner guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(g) of the Co.nstitution. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 22 of 1960. Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. · . H.J. Umrigar and B. P. !tfahshwari, for the petitioner. · - A. C. J,Iitra, B. Das and P. K. Bose, for the respondents Nos. 1and2. · ·

P. K. Mukherjee, for respondent No. 3.

1960, December 9. The Judgment of Kapur, Gajendragadkar and \Vanchoo, JJ., was delivered by Wanchoo, J., and that of Sinha, C.J., and. Subba Rao, J., was delivered by Subba Rao, J. ·

W•nchoo J. \V ANCHOO, J.-This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenges the ·constitutionality of s. 39 of the Calcutta Police Act, No. IV of 1866, (hereinafter called the Act). The facts necessary for our purpose are these. On August 11, 1954, the petitioner entered into an agreement with one Haripada Bhowmick, who is respondent No. 3 with respect to an eating house named 'Kalpatoru Cafeteria', situate in No. 2 Chowranghee Road, Calcutta. The petitioner was• appointed a contractor by this agreement and was given the exclusive. use and occupation of the said eating house upon certain terms and conditions. A licence has to be taken out with respect to an · eating house under s. 39 of the Act. It appears that originally the licence was in the name of . Bhowmick, and one of the conditions of the licence was that the eating house should not be sublet

3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

139

without permission of the Commissioner of Police i96o (hereiuafter referred to as the Commissioner). On the date of the agreement, Bhowmick held a. licence for Kish;:.••rul the eating house, which was to expire on March 31, v. 1955. It is said that under the agreement the licence Commissioft., of was to remain in the name of Bhowmick while the Police. cai.u11a petitioner was to carry on the business as a. contractor. The petitioner carried on the business from after Wancloo J. the date of the agreement and no application for a. fresh licence was made l?Y him before March 31, 1955, when the licence in the name of Bhowmick was to expire. .It was only on August 8, 1955, that an application for licence was ma.de by the petitioner on behalf and in the name o0f Bhowmick, though the business was continued to be run by him a.II the time after March 31, 1955. It appears that the application made in the name of Bhowmick was rejected on December 27, 1956; but in the meantime Bhowmiok was prosecuted on September 10, 1955, for running the eating houee without a licence and was fined on December 12, 1955. Thereafter a. notice was issued to Bbowmick on September 7, 1956, to show ca.use why his application for licence should not be refused inasmuch as be had not applied in time a.nd violated the condition of the licence by sub-letting the ea.ting house to the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner applied on September 21, 1956, for the issue of a licence in his own name. It may be mentioned that in the meantime there had been disputes between Bhowmick and the petitioner and a. suit had been filed by Bhowmick against the petitioner in October 1956 in that connection. It may also be mentioned that though the petitioner applied for the first time on September 21, 1956, for licence he bad already been prosecuted in October, 1955, for keeping a.n ea.ting house without a licence and convicted in November 1955. The application ma.de by the petitioner on September 21, 1956, was eventually rejected on March 30, 1958, though in the meantime the petitioner was all along c01tinuing .the bus~ness of the ea.ting house without havmg obta.med a. licence. After the rejection of his application the petitioner applied to the High

[1961]

140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

1960 Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the constitutionality of s. 39 and also challenging the Kishan Chand f C · h' 1 Arora order o the ommissioner reJecting is icenc6 on v. various grounds. This application was dismissed on commissioner of August 7, 1958. Thereupon the petitioner went up in Police, Calcutta appeal to a Division Bench of the High Court which was disposed of on March 4, 1959. The Division Wanchoo f. Bench held s. 39 to be constitutional. It further held that as extraneous matters had been taken into account in rejecting the application of the petitioner for a licence the rejection was not in accordance with law. However, as the period of one year for which a licence is valid under s. 39 had expired in September 1957, and the judgment was being delivered in March 1959, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that that application could not be considered in 1959. Thereupon the petitioner made another application to the Commissioner on March 30, 1959, for the period from April I, 1959 to March 31, 1960. During all this time the petitioner was carrying on his business as a keeper of the eating house without a licence. This application was found defective and another application was made on May 14, 1959. In the meantime, the petitioner again applied to the High Court on or about May 8, 1959, under Art. 226 of the Constitution in order to compel the Commissioner to issue him a licence or in the alternative to compel him not to prosecute him for keeping an eating house without a licence and for such other orders as the High Court might deem fit to pass. It may be mentioned that day to day prosecution of the petitioner had begun from February 1956 under s. 40 of the Act for continuing to keep an eating house without a licence. This writ application filed in the High Court was withdrawn by the petitioner on May 13, 1959, as his application to the Commissioner of March 30, was defective. On May 30, 1959, the Commissioner rejected the application of the petitioner for a licence on the ground that his antecedents and his present conduct showed that he would not keep good behaviour and further that he would not be able to prevent drunkenness or disorder among the persons frequenting or using the eating

3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

141

1 960 60

house. The petitioner's complaint is that he was not 1 960 60 heard before the order rejecting his application was Ki<han Chand passed. Then on June 15, 1959, the petitioner again Aro.a applied under Art. 226 of the Constitution to the v. High Court against the rejection of his application on Commissioner of May 30. On February 11, 1960, the High Court Police, Calcutta allowed the petitioner to withdraw the application Wan-;;;;o J. with liberty to move snch application as he may be advised before this Court, in case such liberty was necessary. Thereafter tho petitioner moved this Court by his present application on February 15, 1960.

His main contention before us is that s. 39 of the Act confers naked and uncanalised powers on the Commissioner to grant or refuse a licence and that no criteria have been laid down anywhere in the Act to guide the discretion of the Commissioner. Further, no opportunity is provided to an applicant for a licence to be heard either orally or in writing before passing orders on an application for licence; in consequence, the Commissioner has been given completely arbitrary powers either to grant or to refuse a licence and this amounts to an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right of the petitioner to carry on the trade of eating house keeper. Besides this attack on the constitutionality of s. 39 the petitioner also contends that the order is mala fide and should be struck down on this ground. There are some other grounds in the petition but they have not been pressed before us and it will not be necessary to consider them.

The first question therefore that falls for consideration is whether s. 39 of the Act is a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Art. 19(6) on the fundamental right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business contained in Art. 19 ( 1 )(g). Sec. 39 is in these terms:-

"The Commissioner of Police, may, at his discretion, from time to time, grant licences to the keepers of such houses or places of public resort and entertainment as aforesaid for which no licence as is specified in the Bengal Excise Act, 1909, is required upon such conditions, to be inserted in every such

142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961]

Kishan Chand Arora

v.

CommissioneY of Police, Calcutta

Wtinchoo ].

licence, as he, with the sanction of the said State Government from time to time shall order, for securing the good behaviour of the keepers of the said houses or places of public resort or entertainment, and the prevention of drunkenness and disorder among the persons frequenting or using the same; and the said licences may be granted by the said Commissioner, for any time not exceeding one year."

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the language of s. 39 shows that an absolute discretion, untrammelled by any considerations, is conferred on the Commissioner by this section and there is nothing either in the section or anywhere in the Act to guide the discretion of the Commissioner in the matter of gra.nting such licences. Therefore, according to learned counsel, the power conferred on the Commissioner is arbitrary and unguided and such power is necessarily to be struck down on the ground that it cannot be a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right to carry on trade. There is no doubt that if the section empowers the Commissioner to grant or refuse a licence without any criteria to guide him, it would be an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on trade. We have therefore to see whether there is any guidance either in the section or in the Act to regulate the exercise of discretion of the Commissioner in the matter of granting such licences. In this connection it must be remembered that the Act was passed in 1866 when there were no fundamental rights and we cannot expect that meticulousness of language which should be found in statutes passed after January 26, 1950. It may also be mentioned that the Act replaced two earlier Acts, namely, Act XIII of 1856 and XL VIII of 1860. The Act of 1860 also contained provisions for licences for eating houses in ss. 11 and 12 thereof, though the language of those sections was somewhat different. Sec. 11 laid down that in the towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay no eating house shall be kept without licence and provided for a penalty for the same. Sec. 12 then laid down that the Commissioner shall from time to time grant licences to

3 S.C.R. S'UPREME COURT REPORTS

143

keepers of such houses upon conditions for securing the good behaviour of the keepers of the said houses and l(ishan Chanoi for the prevention of drunkenness and disorder among Arora the persons frequenting or using the same. The Ian. v. guage of s. 39, however, is different inasmuch as it Commissioner⁰ ! proyides that the Commissioner may at his discretion Police, Calcutl• from time to time grant licences. The Act of 1860 Wanohoo J. was interpreted by the Bombay High Court in Rustom J. Irani v. H. Kennedy (¹ ) as giving no discretion to the Commissioner to refuse a licence if the person applying for the licence was willing to fulfil the conditions imposed thereunder. In the case of Calcutta, however, s. 39 made a change in the language contained in the earlier Act giving discretion to the Commissioner in the matter of grant of licences. The question therefore is whether the word "discretion" introduced by s. 39 means an absolute and unguided discretion and would therefore now become an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental fight of a citizen to carry on the trade of keeping an ea ting house. There is no doubt, as we have already indicated, that the section does not say as many of the provisions of laws passed after January 26, 1950, do that the Commissioner would grant licence on certain specified considerations. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the first part of s. 39 confers an absolute discretion on the Commissioner to grant or to refuse a licence just as he pleases and that the second part of the section merely provides for certain conditions to be imposed in case the Commissioner pleases to grant a licence. We are however of opinion that when we a.re judging a la.w passed in 1866 to decide. whether it satisfies the test of constitutionality based on Art. 19(l)(g) and Art. 19(6), we should take the section as a whole and see whether on a fair reading of the section it can be said that there is no guidance for the Commissioner in the matter of granting or refusing licences and his power is arbitrary. If such guidance can be found on a fair reading of the section, there would be no reason for striking it down simply because it has not been worded in a manner which (1) (1go1) I.L.R. a6 Bom. 396.

144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

(1961]

· { II

1960 would show immediately that considerations arising Kishan Chand from the provisions of Art. 19(l)(g) and Art. 19(6) were Arora in mind-naturally those considerations could not v. be in the mind of the legislature in 1866. We have Commissioner of therefore to see whether an Act passed before the Police, Calcutta Constitution came into force can be reasonably and fairly read as containing guidance in the matter of Wanchoo ]. licensing, as in this case. If it can be fairly and reasonably read to centain guidance it should not be struck down. If, on the other hand, on a fair and reasonable construction of the section as a whole, we come to the conclusion that there is no guidance in it and the discretion vested in the Commissioner is absolute and arbitrary it will have be struck down.

What then does the section provide? It certainly gives powers to the Commissioner to grant licences at his discretion. Those words, however, by themselves do not necessarily mean that the Commissioner has the power'to a.ct arbitrarily ahd grant licences where he pleases and refuse where he does not please to do so. The section provides further that the licence has to be granted upon certain conditi.ons and those conditions have to satisfy two objects, namely, (i) securing of the good behaviour of the keepers of the said houses or places of public resort and entertainment and (ii) the prevention of drunkenness and disorder among the persons frequenting or using the same. Of course, it is implicit in the section that a licence will only be granted to a person who is the keeper of an eating house. We cannot read the section as laying down thij.t the discretion is absolute and that the imposing of conditions for the aforesaid two objects only arises after that absolute discretion has been exercised in favour of the grant of licences. We see no unfair. ness or unreasonableness in reading the section to mean that the Commissioner shall satisfy himself (i) that the person applying for a licence is the keeper of an eating house, meaning thereby that he has a place where he can carry on the business or trade and that he actually and effectively has control and poasession of that place, (ii) that the keeper is a person of good behaviour so that the eating house may not become

145

3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

a resort of criminals and persons of ill-repute, and (iii) '96° that the keeper is in a position to prevent drunken- Kishan Chand ness and isor er among those who come to the eat-d d Aror& ing house. This section appears in the Police Act, v. the purpose of which is to maintain law and order and Commissioner of that is why we find that the two objects to be secured Police, Calcutta when granting licences are the good behaviour of the keeper himself and the prevention of drunkenness and Wanchoo J. disorder among those who frequent the eating house. It seems therefore to us that s. 39 clearly provides that the Commissioner will use his discretion in deciding whether the person applying for a licence is in actual and effective control and possession of the place where the ea.ting· house is to be kept and is thus the keeper thereof. He will also satisfy himself that the keeper is a person of good behaviour and further that he is able to prevent drunkenness and disorder in the eating house. If he is satisfied on these three matters, it seems to us that the section contemplates that the discretion will be exercised in favour of the grant of a licence. We cannot accept that even though the Commissioner may be satisfied that the person applying for a licence has actual and effective control of the place where he is going to keep the ea.ting house, is a person of good behaviour and can pre,·ent drunkenness and disorder among the clientele, he will still go on to refuse the licence. The discretion that is given to him is to satisfy himself on these three points and if he is satisfied about them he has to grant the licence. On the other hand if he is not satisfied on any one or more of these points he will exercise the discretion by refusing the licence. As for the conditions which will be inserted in the licence, they a.re only for the purpose of carrying on the two objects specified in the section. They will naturally be more detailed in order to carry out the two objects aforesaid. But these two objects in our opinion along with the obvious implication in the section that the person applying must have actual and effective con· trol of the place where he is going to keep the ea.ting house a.re the criteria which will govern the exercise

19

146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961]

1 9 60 of discretion by the Commissioner in the matter of Kishan Chand granting or refusing a licence. We cannot agree with Arooa the learned counsel for the petitioner that the two v. parts of s. 39 should be read separately, as if one has Com.missioner •! no effect on the other. Reading them together, it is Police, Calcutta in our opinion fair and reasonable to come to the con-clusion that the discretion of the Commissioner in this Wanchoo ]. matter is guided by the two objects mentioned in the section and by the necessary implication contained in it that the person applying must be in actual and effective control and possession of the place where he is going to keep the eating house. The argument therefore that s. 39 confers an arbitrary and uncanalised power without any criteria for guiding the discretion of the licensing authority must fail and the section cannot be held to be an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on trade on this ground.

Then it is urged that even if there is guidance in the section it provides for no hearing either oral or written of the person applying for a licence. Further it provides for no grounds to be given for refusing a licence. Therefore, though there may be some guiding principle in the matter of granting licences, the absence of a provision for hearing and for giving reasons for refusal would also make the provision unconstitutional as an unreasonable restriction on a fundamental right. Reference in this connection was made to State of Madras v. V. G. Row (¹ ) where it waB observed that-

"ln considering the reasonableness of laws imposing restrictions on fundamental right, both the substantive and procedural aspects of the impugned law should be examined from the point of view of reasonableness and the test of reasonableness, wherever prescribed, should be applied to each individual statute impugned and no abstract stande.rd or general pattern of reasonableness can be laid down as applicable to all cases."

There is no doubt that procedural provisions of a statute also enter into the verdict as to its reasonableness; but at the same time there can be no abstract or (1) [1952] S.C.R. 597·

3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

147

general principles which would govern the matter and r96o each statute has to be examined in its own setting. It Kishan Chand . is undoubtedly correct that no provision has been ho.a made for giving a hearing to a person applying for a v. licence and the Commissioner has not to give reasons Commissioner of when refusing the licence; but it cannot be laid down Police. Calcutt• as a general propositio~ _tha~ where in the. case of Wan~o f. licensing statute no prov1s10n 1s made for hearmg and · there is no provision for giving reasons for refusal the statute must be struck down as necessarily an unreasonable restriction on a fundamental right. No case has been cited before us which lays down such a general proposition. We have therefore to examine the section in its setting to decide whether the absence of a provision for hearing and for requiring the Commissioner to give reasons for refusal would make this section unconstitutional. The section appears in the Police Act, which deals generally with matters of law and order and the two objects specified in the section are also for the same purpose. The discretion is vested in a high police officer who, one would expect, would use it reasonably. There is no provision for appeal and there is no lis as between the person applying for a licence and the Commissioner; the exercise of the discretion depends upon the subjective satisfaction of the Commissioner as to whether the person applying for a licence satisfies the three conditions mentioned above. It is true that the order when made one way or the other affects the fundamental right of carrying on trade, but in the circumstances it cannot but be an administrative order (see, Nagendra Nath Bora v. The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam (¹ )), and though the Commissioner is expected to act reasonably there is no duty cast on him to act judicially. In Nakkuda Ali v. M. F. De S. Jayaratne('), the Privy Council pointed out that it was quite possible to act reasonably without necessarily acting judicially and that it was a long step in the argument to say that because a man is expected to act reasonably he cannot do so without a course of conduct analogous to the judicial process. The compulsion of hearing before (1) [1958] s.c.R. ""o, u53. (2) [1951] A.C. 66.

148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961]

r960 passing the order implied in the maxim 'audi alteram partem' applies only to judicial or quasi-J"udicial pro- Kishan Chand Arora ceedings: (see, Express Newspapers (P.) Ltd. v. The v. Union of India (¹ )). Therefore, the fact that no hear- Commission" of ing is required to be given by the Commissioner before Police, Calcutta he decides to grant or refuse a licence would not make the provisions as to licensing in the circumstances of Wanchoo f. this case unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right of carrying on a trade. For the same reaso1:s it cannot be said that because the reasons for refusal are not communicated to the person applying that would make the licensing provision unconstitutional. The person applying knows that under the law there are three conditions (already set out above) which the Commissioner has to consider in granting or refusing the licence. If he thinks that he fulfills the three conditions and the Commissioner has acted unreasonably in rejecting his application he is not without a remedy; he can apply to the High Court under Art. 226 and compel the Commissioner to disclose the reasons for refusal before the Court and if those reasons are extraneous or are not germane to the three matters arising under s. 39, the High Court will compel the Commissioner to act within the scope of s. 39. We are therefore of opinion that in the circumstances of this case and in the setting in which s. 39 appears the mere absence of a provision for a hearing or a provision for communicating the reasons for refusal to the person applying, does not make s. 39 unconstitutional as an unreasonable restriction on a fundamental right. The attack therefore on the constitutionality of s. 39 must fail.

Then we turn to the question of mala jides. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Commissioner bas any personal· animus against him or that ho is favouring Bbowmick. What he says in ground 41 of his petition in this connection is that the reasons given by the Commissioner in his order dated May 30, 1959, for refusing the licence are not correct and that the Commissioner is annoyed with him because he went to the High Court by means of a writ application.

(I) (1959] S.C.R. 12, 106.

3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

149

These in our opinion are no grounds for holding that the order of the Commissioner passed in this case on May 30, 1959, is mala fide.

The petition therefore fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.

SuBBA RAO, J.-We regret our inability to agree with Wanchoo, J. Our learned brother in his judgment has stated the facts fully and it is not necessary to restate them here.

Kishan Chand

Ato'a

v.

Commissioner of Police, Calcutta Subba Rao ].

The petitioner applied to the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, for a licence to enable him to carry on the business of an eating house known as "Kalpatoru Cafeteria". The Commissioner by his order dated May 30, 1959, rejected the application made by the petitioner for a licence on two grounds, namely, that he was ·not satisfied that from "the antecedents and present conduct" of the petitioner it would be reasonable to think that the petitioner would keep good behaviour and would be able to prevent drunkenness or disorder among the persons frequenting the eating house. The application was rejected under s. 39 of the Calcutta Police Act, No. IV of 1866 (hereinafter called the Act). The short question raised is whether s. 39 of the Act is constitutionally valid. Section 39 of the Act reads:

"The Commissioner of Police, may, at his discretion, from time.to time, grant licenses to the keepers of such houses or places of public resort and entertainment as aforesaid for which no license as is specified in the Bengal Excise ,Act, 1909, is required upon such conditions, to be inserted in every such license, as he, with the sanction of the said State Government from time to time shall order, for securing the good behaviour of the keepers of the said houses or places of public resort or entertainment, and the prevention of drunkenness and disorder among the persons frequenting or using the same; and the said licenses may be granted by the said Commissioner, for any time not exceeding one year."

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that

150 SUPREME COUl{T REPORTS [1961]

z96o the petitioner has under Art. 19(1 )(g) of the Constitu- Kishan Chand tion a fundamental right to carry on the business of A•ora an eating house and that the provisions of s. 39 of v. the Act impose unreasonable restrictions on the exer- Commissioner of cise of his right and, therefore, the said section is Police, Calcutta void.

Before scrutinising the provisions of that section it Subba Rao J. would be convenient at the outset to notice the relevant aspects of the law vis-a-vis the concept of reasonable restrictions on a fundamental right. The concept of reasonableness has been clearly defined by Patanjali Sastri, C. J., in State af Madras v. V. G. Row(') thus:

"It is important in this context to bear in mind that the test of reasonableness, wherever prescribed, should be applied to each individual statute impugned, and no abstract standard, or general pattern, of reasonableness can be laid down as applicable to all cases. The nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing conditions at the time, should all enter into the judicial verdict".

There the constitutional validity of s. 15(2)(b) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, was impugned on the ground that it fell outside the scope of authorized restrictions in Art. 19(4) of the Constitution. The issue of a notification by the State Government declaring an association unlawful was made to depend upon its subjective satisfaction of certain objective factors. The Act also provided for an enquiry before an Advisory Board and the subsequent review of the order by the Government on the basis of the said enquiry. It was pressed upon this Court to hold that the said restriction passed the test laid down in Art. 19(4) of the Constitution. In rejecting the contention, Patanjali Sastri, C. J., observed thus:

"The formula of subjective satisfaction of the Government or of its officers, with an Advisory (I) [1952] S.C.R. 597, 607, 6o8.

151

3 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Board thrown in to review the materials on which r96o the Government seeks to override a basic freedom Kishan Chand guaranteed to the citizen, may be viewed as reason- Arora able only in very exceptional circumstances and v. within the narrowest limits, and cannot receive Commissioner of judicial approval as a general pattern of reasonable Police, c.1,uua - restrictions on fundamental rights."

Subba - Rao].

The learned Chief Justice adverting to the procedural aspect of the restriction criticised the absence of a provision in the impugned Act for personal service on the association and thus depriving its members of the opportunity to make their representations.

Compared with s. 39 of the Act, the impugned provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act impose more stringent control, on the exercise of the discretionary power by the Government. Yet the Court struck down the provisions. The attempt made to distinguish that decision on the ground that it related to the fundamental right of freedom of speech cannot be justified as the freedom to do business is also one of the important fundamental rights under the Constitution.

The case of Thakur Raghuhir Singh v. Court of Wards, Ajmer (¹ ) was concerned with the question of the reasonableness of the provisions of s. 112 of the Ajmer Tenancy and Land Records Act (XLII of 1950) which provided that "if a landlord habitually infringes the rights of a tenant under this Act, he shall, notwithstanding anything in s. 7 of the Ajmer Government Wards Regulation, 1888 (I of 1888), be deemed to be a 'landlord who is disqualified to manage his own property' within the meaning of s. 6 of the said Regulation and his property shall be liable to be taken under the superintendence of the Court of Wards." The determination of the question whether a landlord habitually infringed the rights of a tenant was left to the Court of Wards. This Court held that that section was void as being unreasonable restriction on the right in property as the restriction made the enjoyment of that right to depend upon the mere discretion of the

l•l [1953] s.c.R. 1~9. 10;5.

152

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961]

executive. Mahajan, J., as he then was, observed as under:

Kishan Chand Arora

Arora "When a law deprives a person of his possession v. of his property for an indefinite period of time Commissioner of merely on the subjective determination of an execu- Poli<;e, Cal<;utta tive officer, such a law can, on no construction of the word "reasonable"· be described as coming with- Subba Rao ]. in that expression, because it completely negatives the fundamental right by making its enjoyment depend on the mere pleasure and discretion of the executive, the citizen affected having no right to have recourse for establishing the contrary in a civil court."

Though s. 112 of the Ajmer Tenancy and Land Records Act laid down an objective test, namely, "a landlord habitually infringing the rights of tenants under that Act", and, therefore, may be said to have laid down some policy for the exercise of the discretion by the Court of Wards, the section was struck down as the discretion was uncanalised and no effective procedure was prescribed to remedy the grievance of an aggrieved party.

It cannot be said that the Commissioner of Police has a higher status than the Court of Wards or that the taking over of the management of an estate affects a larger right than preventing a person from doing his business.

The decision in Messrs. Dwarka Praso.d Laxmi Narain v. The State of U ttar Pra.desh ( ') dealt with cl. 4(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Coal Control Order, 1953, whereunder the licensing authority was given absolute power to grant or refuse to grant, renew or refuse to renew, suspend, revoke, cancel or modify any licence under the said Order and the only thing he had to do was to record reasons for the action he took. Under the clause the State Coal Controller could delegate power to any other officer. This Court held that the said Order was void as it imposed unreasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade and business guaranteed under Art. 19(l)(g) of the Constitution and not coming within the protection afforded (I) [1954] S.C.R, 803, Sn.

153

3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

.

•

l

~ ···:t

by cl. (6) of the Article. Mukherjea, J., as he then was, observed to the following effect: to the following effect: the following effect: following effect:

r96o

was, observed to the following effect: to the following effect: the following effect: following effect: Kish"" nand "The power of granting or withholding licences Ar.or• or of fixing the prices of the goods would neces- iv. sarily have to be vested in certain public officers or Com.missioner of bodies and they would certainly have to be left Pol><•. Calcutt•

with some amount of discretion in these matters. So far no exception can be taken; but the mischief arises when the power conferred on such officers is an arbitrary power unregulated by any rule or principle and it is left· entirely to the discretion of particular persons to do anything they like without any check or control by any higher authority."

Subba Rao - J.

We shall now notice som.e of the decisions cited at the Bar on behalf of the Commissioner in support of the Y:tlidity of the impugned provisions. In Bahul Chandra v. Ohief Justice and Judges, High Oourt of Patna (¹ ) it was held that the proviso to sub-s. (1) of s. 9 of the Indian Bar Councils Act was not void as being an unreasonable restriction upon the freedom to practise a profession, or to carry on an occupation, trade or calling. The proviso to s. 9(1) states expresly that the rules "shall not limit or in any way affect the power of the High Court to refuse admission to any person at its discretion". Under s. 8 of the Indian Bar Councils Act, no person is entitled as of right to practise in any High Court, unless his name is entered in the roll of thii Advocates of that Court maintained under the. Act. Under s. 9 of that Act, the Bar Council can frame rules with the sanction of the High Court to regulate the admission of persons as Advocates, Tlie proviso saves the overriding power of the High Court to refuse admission in its discretion. It was contended that an unfettered and uncontrolled discretion was given to the High Court and that was unreasonable. This Court pointed out that there could not be a better authority than the High Court in that .State to which the discretion could be entrusted. This decision turned upon three considerations, namely, ( 1) no person was entitled as of right to practise; (2) the discretion to refuse was vested in the (r) A.l.R. 1954 S.C. S•i· 20

•

154

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1961]

'9⁶⁰ highest judicial body in the State; and (3) it was Kishan Chand implicit in the power of discretion that the High Corn~t Arora would give notice before rejecting an application. On v. that basis this Court held that the restrictions impo1;. Co"'.missioner of ed by the proviso to s. by the proviso to s. the proviso to s. to s. s. 9(1) were reasonable.

Co"'.missioner of ed by the proviso to s. by the proviso to s. the proviso to s. to s. s. 9(1) were reasonable. Police, Calcutta Nor does the decision in H arishankar Bag la v. The Subb::;ao ;. State of Madhya Pradesh (¹ ) lay down any differer,,t principle. There this Court was concerned with cl. 3 of the Cotton Textile (Control of Movement) Order, 1948, promulgated by the Central Government under s. 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Acl;, 1946, which required a citizen to take a permit from the Textile Commissioner to enable him to transport cotton textiles purchased by him. It was contended in that case that the requirement of a permit was an unreasonable restriction on the citizen's right unde.r sub-els. (f) and (g) of Art. 19(1) of the Constitution. This Court rejected the contention and affirmed the validity of the law. Mahajan, C. J., speaking for thi:i Court gave four reasons in support of his conclusion and they were: ( 1) the Legislature passed the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act during a fftiriod of emergerwy when it was necessary to impose control on the production, supply and distribution of com .. modities essential to the life of the community,; (2) cl. 3 of the Control Order did not deprive a 9itizen of the right to dispose of or transport cotton textileE; purchased by him, but only required him to take a. permit from the Textile Commissioner to enable him to transport them; (3) if transport of essential commodities by rail or other means of conveyance was left uncontrolled, it might well have seriously hampered the supply of these commodities to the public; and (4) the policy underlying the Order was clearly enunciated by the provisions therein and that policy governed the exercise of the discretion by the Textile Commissioner. On these considerations this Court maintained the validity of that Order. The said decision has no analogy to the provisions of s. 39 of the Act in question.

The decision in Union of India v. Bhana Mal Gulzarimal Ltd.(') related to the question of validity of (t) [1955] I S.C.R. 380, (•) [196o] •$.C.R. 6•7, 641,

155

3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

cl. llB of the Iron an_d Steel (Control of Production i96o and Distribution) Order, 1941. This Court held, hav- Kisha• Chand ing regard to the provisions of that Order and those Ar••• of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, Y. 1946, that the Legislature had clearly enunciated its Commiss;.,.,. of legislative policy and that cl. llB of the Order laid Polic-, Ca1 .. 111a - down the object which was intended to be achieved. Gajendragadkar, J., delivering the judgment of the Subba R•o J. Court, observed thus:

"Therefore reading cl. llB by itself we do not see how it would be possible to hold that the said clause is violative of"Art. 19. Io fact, if ss. 3 and 4 are valid and cl. llB does nothing more than prescribe conditions for the exercise of the delegate's authority which are co!liistent with s. 3 it is only the actual priee structure fixed by the Controller which iu a given case can be successfully challenged as violative of Art. 19."

The learned Judge considered the price structure fixed by the notification and observed that the respondents therein did not seriously challenge the validity of the notification in respect of price structure and, that apart, it was not proved that the notification adversely affected a large class of dealers taken as a whole. The judgment, therefore, does not help the respondents.

~·

Nor is the decision of this Court in Mineral Development Ltd. v. State of Bihar (¹ ) of any help to the res. pondents. There the constitutional validity of s. 25( 1) of the Bihar Mica Act (10 of 1948) was impugned as violating the petitioners' fundamental right under Art. 19(l)(f) and (g), of the Constitution. Under s. 25(1 )( c) of that Act discretion was given to cancel a licence to the State Government, but cl. (c) was hedged in by two important restrictions, namely, (i) the failure to comply with the provisions of that Act or the rules made therimnder should be a repeated failure and not a mere sporadic one, i.e., the defaulter must be a recalcitrant one; (ii) before cancelling the licence the State Government should afford reasonable oppor. tunity to the licensee to show cause why his licence (I) (196oj 2 S.C.R. 6og, 619o

156

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961]

should not be cancelled. This Court in upholding the validity of the said section observed thus:

Kishan Chand Arora

Arora "The power given to the State Government is v. only to achieve the object of the Act, i.e., to enforce Commissioner of the said provisions, which have been enacted in the Police, Calcutta interest of the public; and that power, as we hi~ve indicated, is exercisable on the basis of objective Subba Rao ]. tests and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. We cannot, therefore, hold tl:at s. 25(l)(c) of the Act imposes an unreasonable restriction on the petitioner's fundamental rightB under Art. 19(l)(f) and (g) of the Constitution."

This decision far from helping the respondents is, to some extent, against their contention.

The result bf the discussion may briefly be summarized in the form of the following propositions: A fundamental right to do business can be controlled by the State only by making a law imposing in the interest of the general public reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the said right; restrictions on the exercise of a fundamental right shall not be arbitrary or excessive or beyond what is required in the interest of the general public; the reasonableness of a restriction shall be tested both from substantive and procedural aspects; an uncontrolled and uncanalised power conferred on an officer is an unreasonable restriction on such right; though a legislative policy may have been clearly expressed in a statute, it must also provide a suitable machinery for implementing that policy in accordance with the principles of natural justice; whether a restriction is reasonable or not is a justiciable concept and it is for the Court to come to one conclusion or the other having regard to the considerations laid down by Patanjali Sastri, C.J., in State of Madras v. V. G. Row(') and similar others; .in taking an overall picture of the relevant circumstances, the Court may legitimately take into consideration the fact that the discretion is entrusted to a State Government or a highly placed officer, but that in itself is of minor importance for the simple reason that the fundamental right itself is guaranteed against the (x) [1952] S.C.R. 597.

157

3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

'9⁶⁰ Kishan Chand hora v.

action of the State, which is defined to include not '9⁶⁰ only the Union or the State Governments but also Kishan Chand Parliament, Legislatures and all local or other authori- hora ties within the territory of India; the distinction v. between an administrative authority and a judicial Commissioner of authority is not of much relevance in the context of Police, Calcutta a reasonable restriction, except perhaps a Court may Subba Rao J. more readily be inclined to uphold a restriction if a matter is entrusted to an impartial judicial authority than to an executive authority.

Bearing the aforesaid principles in mind, let us look at the impugned provisions of the Act. The section has been extracted supra. The first part of the section confers a free and unqualified discretion on the Commissioner to grant a licence. A discretionary powsr to issue a licence necessarily implies a power to refuse to issue a licence. The word "may" is an enabling one and in its ordinary sense means "permissible". When coupled with the words "at his discretion" it emphasises the clear intention of the legislature to confer on the Commissioner an unrestrained freedom to act according to his own judgment and conscience. If the section stops there, it is common case that the power of the Commissioner is uncontrolled and uncanalised. The second part of the section deals with the nature of the conditions to be inserted in the licence. The conditions to be imposed are for securing the good behaviour of keepers of public resNt and for the prevention of drunkenness and disorder among the persons frequenting or using such places. No doubt the said conditions must have the sanction of the State Government. This part, therefore, ensures the peaceful and orderly conduct of business. The sect.ion is clear and unambiguous in terms and it is not disputed that the plain terms of the section will not enable the conditions of a licence to be projected into the matter of the exercise of the discretion. But what is contended is that the conditions laid down a precise policy for guiding the discretion of the Commissioner to give or not to give a licence. There are many objections to this approach

I

158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l91H]

" 1• 11

! l l

1960 to the problem. Firstly, it is to rewrite the sec- Kiskan Chand tion. If the legislature intended to guide the dis- Arora cretion by laying down objective criteria it would v. have stated so in express terms; it would not have Commissioner of left the matter to the absolute discretion of the Com- Police. Caloutta missioner. Secondly, if the two conditions only of subba Rao ;. the licence control the exercise of the discretion, the Commissioner cannot travel beyond the said two conditions. As a result the amplitude of the discretion is drastically cut down. The Commissioner would be able to refuse a licence only if he was satisfied th1~t the applicant could not be relied upon to comply wit.h the said conditions; if he was so satisfied, he could not refuse a licence in spite of the fact that there were many other good and relevant reasons for doing so. Thirdly, if the conditions are not exhaustive but only illustrative, the section would continue to suffer from the same vice, as it would still be open to the Commissioner to refuse a licence for any other reason. Fourthly, discretion based upon an anticipatory breach of conditions will be as arbitrary as in the case of absolute disrretion, particularly in the case of new applicants, as more often than not it will have to be exercised on the basis of surmises, gossip or information, which· may be false or at any rate untested. Lastly, by this unwarranted search for an undisclosed policy in the crevices of the statute, this Court will not only be finding an excuse to resuscitate an invalid law but also be encouraging the making of laws by appropriate authorities in derogation of fundamental rights.

The provisions of ss. 4 7 and 48(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (IV of 1939), bring out in bold relief the distinction between the exercise of a discre. tion to issue a licence and the imposition of conditions in a licence. Section 4 7 enjoins on the Regional Transport Authority in considering an application for a stage carriage permit to have regard to the matters enunciated in that section. Section 48(3) enables the Regional Transport Authority to attach to the permit the conditions detailed in that sub-section. While the former section regulates the exerciile

159

3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

of the discretion of the Regional Transport Authority issuing a permit, the latter describes the nature of the conditions to be inserted in the permit. These provisions no doubt cannot be invoked to construe the provisions of s. 39 of the Act, but we are referring to them only to show the legislative practice in such matters and to emphasize the fact that the scope of the discretion to issue a licence and that of the power to impose conditions in a licence are different. Therefore, on a true construction of the plain words of the statute we cannot hold that any policy reasonably capable of controlling the discretion of the Commissioner has been laid down.

Kishan Chand Arora

v.

Commissioner of Police, Calcutta Subba Rao ].

Even if the two conditions can be read into the first part of s. 39, the arbitrariness is writ large in the manner of exercising the so-called guided discretion. In this context it is not necessary to come to a definite conclusion on the question whether the discretion is judicial or executive, for whatever be the nature of the discretion it must be tested from the standpoint of reasonableness of the restrictions imposed on a person's right to do business. A citizen of India, for the purpose of eking out his livelihood, seeking to do an extensive business of an eating house, applies to the Commissioner for a licence, for without that licence he cannot do business, and if he does he will be liable to prosecution. The Commissioner can reject the application on two grounds, namely, (1) from his antecedents and present conduct it would be unreasonable to think that the petitioner would keep good behaviour, and (2) the Commissioner is not satisfied that the petitioner would be able to prevent drunkenness and disorder among the persons frequenting or using the eating house. Admittedly this order is made without giving any opportunity to an applicant to prove that he would satisfy both the tests laid down by s. 39 of the Act. The Commissioner is not legally bound to give any reasons for his refusal to give a licence. Even if reasons are given, there is no machinery for getting such an order revoked or vacated. The section does not impose a duty on the Commissioner to give reasonable opportunity to an

160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[196i]

'9⁶⁰ applicant to clear his character or to disprove any un- Kishan Chand warranted allegations made against him or to prov•3 Arora that he would satisfy both the tests laid down by s. 3!) v. of the Act. Nor does the section provide for an appeal Com.missioner of against the order of the Commissioner to an appropri- Police, Calcutta ate authority. The suggestion that the authority iH

a high officer in the police department and that he can Subba Rao ]. be relied upon to exercise his discretion properly doe;i not appeal to us for two reasons, namely, (1) as we have already pointed out, the Constitution gives a. guarantee for the fundamental right against the State and other authorities; and (2) the status of an officer is not an absolute guarantee that the power will never be abused. Fundamental rights cannot be made to depend solely upon such presumed fairness and integrity of officers of State, though it may be a minor element in considering the question of the reasonableness of a restriction. Therefore, it is clear to our mind that the exercise of the power also suffers from a statutory defect as it is not channelled through an appropriate machinery. We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that s. 39 of the Act infringes the fundamental right of the petitioner under Art. 19(l)(g) of the Constitution both from substantive and procedural aspects.

The next question is whether a mandamus will issue against the Commissioner. The Commissioner admittedly has launched criminal proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act for not taking out a licence under s. 39 of the Act. As we have held that s. 39 of the Act is constitutionally void, a writ of mandamus will issue against the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, directing him not to take any further proceedings against the petitioner for not taking out a licence under the provisions of the Act.

BY COURT. In accordance with the opinion of the majority, this Petition is dismissed with costs.

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether s. 39 of the Calcutta Police Act, 1866, by vesting discretionary power in the Commissioner of Police to grant or refuse eating-house licences without statutory criteria, constitutes an unreasonable restriction on the petitioner's fundamental right to carry on trade under Art. 19(1)(g) read with Art. 19(6).¶55
The court held
Read as a whole, s. 39 canalises the Commissioner's discretion: he must satisfy himself on three matters - that the applicant is in actual and effective control and possession of the premises (and so is the keeper), that the keeper is of good behaviour, and that he can prevent drunkenness and disorder - and if satisfied on these the discretion is to be exercised in favour of grant; the discretion is therefore neither absolute nor arbitrary.ratio¶75
2.
Whether the absence of any provision for a hearing of the applicant (oral or written) or for the giving/communication of reasons for refusal renders s. 39 an unreasonable restriction and hence unconstitutional.¶79
The court held
The Commissioner, in passing an order under s. 39, acts administratively: though bound to act reasonably, he is under no duty to act judicially; consequently, in the setting of this police licensing provision, the mere absence of provision for a hearing or for communicating reasons for refusal does not make s. 39 an unreasonable restriction on a fundamental right.ratio¶84
3.
Whether the Commissioner's order of May 30, 1959 refusing the licence was mala fide.¶55
The court held
The petitioner's allegations - that the reasons given in the May 30, 1959 order were incorrect and that the Commissioner was annoyed because the petitioner had gone to the High Court by writ - are no grounds for holding that order mala fide.ratio¶91
4.
Raised in the dissenting opinion: whether, s. 39 being (in that view) constitutionally void, a writ of mandamus should issue directing the Commissioner not to take further proceedings against the petitioner for want of a licence.medium confidence¶179
The court held
Since (in the dissent's view) s. 39 is constitutionally void, a writ of mandamus should issue against the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, directing him not to take any further proceedings against the petitioner for not taking out a licence under the Act.ratio¶179