B. P. SINHA, J. L. KAPUR, K. N. WANCHOO, K. SUBBA RAO, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR
Kishan Chand Arora – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Police, Calcutta – Respondent
Judgment
WANCHOO, 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 reapect 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 without permission of the Commissioner of Police (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner). On the date of the agreement, Bhowmick held a licence for the eating house, which was to expire on March 31, 1955. It is said that under the agreement the licence was to remain in the name of Bhowmick while the petitioner was to carry on the b
Relied on : Nagendra Nath Bora v. Comar. of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam
referred to : Express Newspapers (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India
referred : State of Madras v. V. G. Row
Raghubir Singh v. court of Wards, Ajmer
Messrs. Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Harishankar Bagla v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Babul Chandra v. chief justice and Judges, High court of Patna
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.