SK MD SOLEMAN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-1963-5-5
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on
May 01,1963
SK.MD.SOLEMAN
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
R. V. BRAILSFORD [REFERRED TO]PORTER V. FREUDENBERG [REFERRED TO]
BINNS V. WARDALE [REFERRED TO]
JOHNSTONE V. PEDLAR [REFERRED TO]
JOYCE V. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS [REFERRED TO]
JESHINGBHAI V. EMPEROR,CHAGLA C.J. [REFERRED TO]
KISHAN CHAND V. COMPETENT AUTHORITY BAIRAGARH [REFERRED TO]
PURUSHOTTAM SINGH V. COMMR. OF POLICE,CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
VEERAPPA PILLAI V. RAMAN AND RAMAN LTD. [REFERRED TO]
NOOR MOHEMMAD V. STATE [REFERRED TO]
G.D. KARKARE V. T.L.SHEVDE [REFERRED TO]
RASHID AHMED VS. MUNICIPAL BOARD KAIRANA OPPOSITE PARTY; AND UNION OF INDIA AND STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
A K GOPALAN VS. STATE OF MADRAS OPPOSITE PARTY; UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ROMESH THAPPAR VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
CHARANJIT LAL CHOWDHARY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. MADAN GOPAL RUNGLA [REFERRED TO]
SATISH CHANDRA ANAND VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. UNITED MOTORS INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
NAIN SUKH DAS VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. SUBODH GOPAL BOSE [REFERRED TO]
DWARKADAS SHRINIVAS VS. SHOLAPUR SPINNING AND WEAVING COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
POOVERJEE B BHARUCHA VS. EXCISE COMMISSIONER AND THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER AJMER [REFERRED TO]
VICE CHANCELLOR UTKAL UNIVERSITY VS. S K GHOSH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. O C MANDAWAR [REFERRED TO]
K N GURUSWAMY VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BOMBAY VS. BOMBAY EDUCATION SOCIETY [REFERRED TO]
D P JOSHI VS. STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT [REFERRED TO]
HANS MULLER OF NIIN?NL IIRG VS. SUPERINTCNDENT PRESIDENCY JAIL CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
RAI SAHIB RAM JAWAYA KAPUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
F N ROY VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
RAM KRISHNA DALMIA SHRIYANS PRASAD JAIN JAI DAYAL DALMIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SEWPUJANRAI INDRASANARAI LIMITED VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [REFERRED TO]
BASHESHAR NATH VS. MODEL KNITTING INDUSTRIES LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
M S M SHARMA VS. KRISHNA SINHA [REFERRED TO]
DEEP CHAND BRAHMAN LAL SINGH NIRANJAN SINGH HARI SHANKER SHYAM LAL RAM PRASAD JAIN TRANSPORT GENERAL TRADING CO JAIPAL SINGH VIRENDRA PAL GUPTA VISHAMBHAR DAYAL GUPTA REJENDRAPAL SIA RAM BRIJPAL SINGH PANDIT SRINIVAS MADHO RAM MOHI UDD VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
Y MAHABOOB SHERIFF AND SONS Y MAHABOOB SHERIFT S SHAMSODDIN VS. MYSORE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BANGALORE:MYSORE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BANGALORE:MYSORE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BANGALORE [REFERRED TO]
SHRINIVASA REDDY VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
FEDCO PRIVATE LIMITED VS. S N BILGRAMI [REFERRED TO]
HAMDARD DAWAKHANA KALIPADA DEB LAKSHMAN SHRIPATI LTPURE ALIAS LAKSHMAN SHRI PATI IMPORE A B CHOUDHRI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
JAGAN NATH SATHU VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SAHIBZADA SAIYED MUHAMMED AMIRABBAS ABBASI VS. STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT NOW MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
PRESIDENT OF INDIA VS. BERUBARI UNION AND EXCHANGE OF ENCLAVES [REFERRED TO]
GAZULA DASARATHA RAMA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
KISHAN CHAND ARORA VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. ABDULL KHADER [REFERRED TO]
GLASS CHATONS IMPORTERS AND USERS ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
P J IRANI VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
CALCUTTA GAS COMPANY PROPRIETARY LIMITED VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
BOKARO AND RAMGUR LIMITED VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE VS. LAKSHMI CHAND GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
RAMAGOPAL NAICKER VS. MUTHUKRISHNA AYYAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. ABDUL RASHID [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
TASLEEMA VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(DLH)-2009-7-296] [REFERRED TO]VIDYA RAMESH CHAND SHAH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-11-57] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
P.B.Mukharji, J. -
(1.)This is an appeal from the judgment and order of Mr. Justice Binayak Nath Banerjee dismissing the petitioner's application for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.)The petitioner applied to this Court for a Mandamus as well as Certiorari against the respondents--the Commissioner of Police and the State of West Bengal for refusing to grant or renew the petitioner's licence for the year 1962-63 in respect of an eating house established at 98, Lower Chit-pore Road, Calcutta which the petitioner claimed to have been running for several years. The establishment is said to serve meal of rice and curry twice daily to its customers. It is also alleged that the petitioner is a teetotaller and a religious minded person, a man of good behaviour and that there has never been any instance of drunkenness or disorder in the eating house establishment. It is said that no liquor or spirit or alcohol is served in the eating house. There is a supporting affidavit in favour of the petitioner from his landlord. The petitioner is a monthly tenant in respect of a room of the said premises at Lower Chitpore Road paying a rent of Rs. 131.35 nP per month.
(3.)The impugned order of the Commissioner of Police is No. 2884 P. S./PS/131(EH)62, dated 28th June, 1962 and is in the following terms;
"With reference to your application, dated 17-3-1962 for fresh issue of police licence by way of renewal for 1962-63 in respect of a Eating house at 98, Lower Chitpore Road, Calcutta, I regret to inform you that the same has been refused. You are, therefore, directed to close down the said establishment immediately and report compliance."
(2.)The petitioner applied to this Court for a Mandamus as well as Certiorari against the respondents--the Commissioner of Police and the State of West Bengal for refusing to grant or renew the petitioner's licence for the year 1962-63 in respect of an eating house established at 98, Lower Chit-pore Road, Calcutta which the petitioner claimed to have been running for several years. The establishment is said to serve meal of rice and curry twice daily to its customers. It is also alleged that the petitioner is a teetotaller and a religious minded person, a man of good behaviour and that there has never been any instance of drunkenness or disorder in the eating house establishment. It is said that no liquor or spirit or alcohol is served in the eating house. There is a supporting affidavit in favour of the petitioner from his landlord. The petitioner is a monthly tenant in respect of a room of the said premises at Lower Chitpore Road paying a rent of Rs. 131.35 nP per month.
(3.)The impugned order of the Commissioner of Police is No. 2884 P. S./PS/131(EH)62, dated 28th June, 1962 and is in the following terms;
"With reference to your application, dated 17-3-1962 for fresh issue of police licence by way of renewal for 1962-63 in respect of a Eating house at 98, Lower Chitpore Road, Calcutta, I regret to inform you that the same has been refused. You are, therefore, directed to close down the said establishment immediately and report compliance."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.