SUNDER DUMANNA SHETTY Vs. K D BILLIMORIA
LAWS(BOM)-1954-10-2
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on October 05,1954

SUNDER DUMANNA SHETTY Appellant
VERSUS
K.D.BILLIMORIA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

YICK WO V. HOPKINS [REFERRED TO]
HARRY GUNDLING V. CITY OF CHICAGO [REFERRED TO]
MARION B. KOTCH V. BOARD OF RIVER PORT PILOT COMMRS. FOR THE PORT OF NEW ORLEANS [REFERRED TO]
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. ROBERT M. HARRISS [REFERRED TO]
WILLIAM LUDWIG ULLMANN V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [REFERRED TO]
NATVARLAL AMBALAL V. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUBIR SINGH V. COURT OF WARDS,AJMER [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDJI VITHALDAS AND CO. V. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,AHMEDABAD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL HABIB MOHAMMAD STATE OF HYDERABAD STATE OF MYSORE VS. ANWAR ALI SARKAR:ANWAR ALI SARKAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADRAS VS. V G ROW:THE UNION OF INDIA AND THE STATE OF TRAVANCORE COCHIN [REFERRED TO]
DWARKA PRASAD LAXMI NARAIN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
EBRAHIM VAZLR MAVAT ANFL OTHERS VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
HARISHANKAR BAGLA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
R M SESHADRI VS. DIST MAGISTRATE TANJORE [REFERRED TO]
GANAPATI SINGHJI VS. STATE OF AJMER [REFERRED TO]
PANNALAL BINJRAJ VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
JESHINGBHAI ISHWARLAL VS. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THERE is not much merit in the contention that the object of S. 33 (1) (w) (i) was to provide for rules or orders relating to the licence and control of places of public amusement and that it does not empower the Commissioner of Police to frame rules imposing restrictions as regards the persons who were to hold such licences. In order to license or control a place of public amusement or entertainment, it is necessary that the licence should be given to some person. That person must be a proper person for carrying out the terms of the licence and for seeing that the conditions subject to which the licence is granted are observed. It cannot be said that every rule which lays down a personal qualification for the grant of a licence would be bad in law. 'the conditions of suitability provided for under R. 5 (1), the impugned R. 13-A (4) and R. 27 are conditions which on a plain reading of S. 33 (1) (w) the Commissioner of Police is authorised to enact. The existence of an enabling provision contained in S. 33 (7) empowering the competent authority to refuse a licence to a person of notoriously bad character does not of necessity limit or restrict the power and authority conferred under the provisions of S. 23 (l) (w ). JUDGMENT : Sunder Dumanna Shetty, the petitioner herein, is the proprietor of an eating house and restaurant named Shanti Bhuvan Hindu Hotel, situate at Clark Road, Jacob Circle, Bombay, hereinafter referred to as "the hotel". A licence had been issued to the petitioner under the provisions of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, being licence No. 970/ehl 1954-55 in respect of the said hotel. The said licence was renewed from time to time upto 31st March 1957. On 28th February 1957 the petitioner made an application for the renewal of the said licence for the year 1957-58. On 2nd August 1957 the Commissioner of Police, Bombay, issued a notice against the petitioner, stating that for the reasons set out in the said notice the Commissioner of Police proposed not to renew the said licence in favour of the petitioner and called upon the petitioner to show cause why such action should not be taken. The petitioner was required to appear before the Commissioner of Police on 9th August 1957 for that purpose. In response to the said notice, the petitioner appeared before the Commissioner of Police on 9th August 1957 and urged that the reasons on which the Commissioner of Police proposed to act as aforesaid were without foundation and entirely baseless. On 2nd September 1957 the Commissioner of Police passed an order rejecting the application for renewal of the said licence on the ground that the petitioner was not a suitable person to hold such a licence. On 4th September 1957 the Commissioner of Police addressed a letter to the petitioner, stating that he had refused to renew the licence and enclosed a copy of the said order.
(2.)THE petitioner challenges the validity of the said order and has filed the petition herein for the issue of a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordering and/or directing the respondents or any of them to withdraw and cancel the said order dated the 2nd September 1957 and further directing the respondents or any of them to renew the licence in respect of the said hotel, or in the alternative, directing and/or compelling the Commissioner of Police to withdraw the said order dated 2nd September 1957 and to proceed to hear and determine the petitioner's application for renewal of the licence in accordance with law.
(3.)THE impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner of Police in exercise of the powers vested in him under Rule 13-A (4) of the rules framed under the provisions of section 33 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The said rule provides as under:?
"13-A (4 ). The Commissioner of Police may refuse to renew the licence if he is satisfied after such enquiry as he thinks fit, that the licensee is not a suitable person for continuing to hold the licence".
It is contended by the petitioner that Rule, 13-A (4) is not warranted by the provisions of the aforesaid section 33 under which it is purported to have been framed, and that it is not within the competence of the Commissioner of Police, who has framed the aforesaid rule, to do so. This ground is not set out in the petition. Mr. Sorabjee, who appears for the petitioner, desired to amend the petition in order to take this additional plea. The learned Advocate General, who appears for the respondents, stated that he had no objection to the point being urged on the present petition, it being purely a point of law, without a formal amendment being made to the petition.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.