- (1.)Three other miscellaneous criminal cases Nos. 113, 114 and 116 of 1950-51 are of the same type (Jagannath V/s. The State, Radheshyam V/s. The State, and Naraindass V/s. The State) and were heard along with this case. This order would, therefore, govern all these four cases.
(2.)The applicant filed an application under Art. 226 for issue of a writ of Certiorari and, or a writ of Mandamus against the State and the Chief Commissioner of Bhopal. The applicant is a dealer in cotton cloth in the name and style of the firm Messers Jagannath Narayandass and under the Bhopal Cotton Cloth Dealers' Licensing Order No. 18 of 1949 was granted a license, in the name of the said firm, to deal in cotton cloth which was due to expire on the 31st March 1951. On 9-8-1950, the applicant was informed that the licence was cancelled by the order of the non-applicant No. 2, the Chief Commissioner, Bhopal under clause 20 of the above Order with effect from the same date. In the issue of the Bhopal Gazette of 9th of September 1950 a notification was published about the cancellation of the licence of the applicant and others. On 30-9-50 the applicant addressed a letter to the Chief Commssioner requesting him to rescind the order within a week or otherwise he would be constrained to seek redress under Art. 32 or 226 of the Constitution. No reply was given by the Chief Commissioner hence this application was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, on 17-10-50, and after one adjournment at the request of the Government Advocate who appeared for the State as also the Chief Commissioner, the application was heard on 31-10-50. On 30-10-50 the Government Advocate filed, by way of a return an affidavit sworn by the Food and Civil Supplies and Textile Commissioner, admitting the facts but denying the contentions.
(3.)On behalf of the applicant it is urged that :
(1) Clause 20 of the Order No. 18 was void as it infringed the fundamental right of the applicant under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution as it did not fall within the purview of Article 19(6) of the Constitution and placed an unreasonable restriction on the right under the former Article;

(2) that clause 20 enabled the Government to cancel the licence without giving the reasons or notice and was thus against the principles of natural justice;

(3) that the Chief Commissioner had acted as an Administrative Court in passing the order under clause 20 and a writ of Certiorari may be issued;

(4) that even if the Chief Commissioner acted as an Executive Authority in passing the order a direction can be issued to him.

The applicant therefore prayed that a direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued compelling the opponents to keep and continue in force the licence granted to the applicant till its expiry on the 31st of March 1951 and that the order dated 9-8-50 be set aside on the grounds that clause 20 of the said Order was void under Article 13 of the Constitution being inconsistent with its provisions and the non-applicant No. 2, as an Administrative Court was bound to give a hearing to the applicant before passing an order to his detriment.

;