Judgment

Bose, J. - The question here is whether an order should issue under S. 45, Specific Relief Act, against the appellant who is the Commissioner of Police, Bombay.

2. The respondent, Gordhandas Bhanji, wanted to build a cinema house on a plot of land at Andheri in the year 1945. At that date Andheri did not form a part of Bombay and under the rules then in force it was necessary to obtain permission from the District Magistrate of that area in the form of a No Objection Certificate. Accordingly, the respondent made the necessary application on 12th September 1945. Permission was refused on 30th September 1945 on the ground that the public of the locality objected and also because there was already one cinema theatre at Andheri and so it was not necessary to have another "for the present."

3. On 1st October 1945, Andheri became a part of Greater Bombay and the jurisdiction to grant or refuse a license was transferred to the Commissioner of Police, Bombay. The respondent accordingly put in a second application on 21st November 1945 and addressed it to the Commissioner of Police. After some correspondence this was also turned down on 19th March 1946 "owing to public opposition." Nothing daunted, the respondent applied again on 1st April 1946 and asked for a "reopening" of his case. One of the grounds given was that

"The Government of Bombay are giving very careful attention and affording all reasonable facilities to develop the Greater Bombay into a model one. A modern cinema, therefore, of the type I propose to build is indispensable."

In view of that, not unnaturally, the Commissioner of Police appears to have consulted the Government of Bombay, for he wrote to the respondent on 25th April 1946 saying that - "the whole question of considering and approving sites for cinemas is under the consideration of the Government of Bombay," and he promised that "when a decision is arrived at, your application will be examined."

4. It seems that somewhere about this time, a Cinema Advisory Committee was constituted by Government. We have not been enlightened about the scope and extent of its powers but it is evident from its nomenclature that its functions were purely advisory. Five members of this Committee appear to have inspected the site on 12th May 1947 and after prolonged discussion they reached the conclusion that "in view of the location of four schools near-by the site, this site is unsuitable for the purpose required and therefore it should be rejected." A note was drawn up to that effect and the matters was ordered to be placed on the agenda of the next meeting of the Committee "for final decision."

5. This final decision has not been placed on record but the Commissioner of Police tells us in his affidavit that within a month the Committee advised that the application should be granted. Accordingly, the Commissioner accorded the necessary permission by his letter dated 14 / 16th July 1947. There is no reference here to the recommendations of the Advisory Committee and though they may have weighed, and rightly, with the Commissioner there is nothing on the face of the letter to indicate that the decision was not that of the Commissioner himself given in bona fide exercise of the discretion vested in him.

6. We refer to this because the Commissioner has stated in his affidavit that

"I was fully satisfied that the petitioner s application should be refused but that it was only at the instance of the Cinema Advisory Committee that I granted the said permission on 14th July 1947."

That, however, would not affect the validity of his order. There is no suggestion that his will was overborne or that there was dishonesty or fraud in what he did. In the absence of that, he was entitled to take into consideration the advice thus tendered to him by a public body set up for this express purpose, and he was entitled in the bona fide exercise of his discretion to accept that advice and act upon it even though he would have acted differently if th