The court upheld the validity of the Corporation's refusal to grant a soap manufacturing license, citing the Corporation Act's provisions and rejecting the petitioner's contentions on constitutional grounds.

CHANDRASHEKHAR, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is a manufacturer of soaps. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, he has challenged the orders of the authorities of the Bangalore City municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'corporation') refusing him licence to carry on manufacture of soaps in the premises in which he has been so doing.

( 2 ) MOST of the material facts are not in dispute. The petitioner has been carrying on the manufacture of soaps in a shed in the compound of premises No. 20. III Block, Jayanagar in bangalore, Jayanagar Extention was formed by the Bangalore City Improvement Trust Board and was outside limits of the Corporation. The petitioner has been residing in the main premises which has been taken on lease. He has obtained the consent of the landlord to carry on manufacture of soaps in that land.

( 3 ) FOR the first time the petitioner made an application to the Commissioner of the Corporation, respondent-1 on 29-1-1964 for the grant of a licence for manufacture of soaps. On 16-4-1964 on endorsement signed by the Health Officer of the Corporation for the Commissioner was issued to him intimating that licence had been refused. He sent another petition to the Commissioner on 4-5-1964 contending that his application for licence had not been considered by the commissioner and the same might be disposed of on merits. As no reply was received from the commissioner, he filed an appeal to the Standing Committee (Health) on the Corporation against the Order refusing licence. The Standing Committee rejected his appeal on 27-4-1965 and an endorsement was issued to him on 18-6-1965 intimating such rejection.

( 4 ) FOR running the Soap Factory without a licence the petitioner was prosecuted before the second City Magistrate, Bangalore, in C. C. 482/65 and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ -. He filed a revision petition-Cr. R. P. 294/65 before this Court against his conviction and sentence passed on him. On 17-1-1966 this Court dismissed the revision petition.

( 5 ) AGAIN on 27-1-1965 the petitioner applied to the Commissioner for grant of a licence for manufacture of soaps in the same premises. On 16-2-1965 an endorsement signed by the Health officer for the Commissioner was sent to him intimating refusal of the licence. Against that refusal he filed an appeal to the Standing Committee which dismissed his appeal in April 1965. An endorsement intimating the dismissal of the appeal was sent to him.

( 6 ) THE refusal of the Corporation authorities to grant the licence has been assailed by Mr. N. Seshadri, learned counsel for the petitioner, on following grounds:

i. Section 297 of the Corporation Act which forbids carrying on manufacture of soaps without a licence issued by the Corporation authorities, offends Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution; ii. Conferment of power by Section 297 of the Corporation Act on the Commissioner to grant or refuse licence, is arbitrary, unguided and uncontrolled and hence unconstitutional; iii. The order refusing licence is invalid as it was made by the Health Officer who has neither been empowered by the Corporation Act to exercise that power nor has been delegated that power by the Commissioner; iv. The orders of the Commissioner and of the Standing Committee are violative of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given an oral hearing by the Commissioner or by the standing Committee: v. Refusal of licence to the Petitioner while granting licence to other soap manufacturers in crowded localities in Bangalore City, is discriminatory and offends Article 14 of the constitution. vi. The Orders of the Commissioner and of the Standing Committee are invalid as they do not set out the grounds for refusing the licence, and rejecting the appeal.

( 7 ) SUB-SECTION (1) of Section 297 of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the "corporation Act") provides that no place within the limits of the ci

Click Here to Read the rest of this document