HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. B. Mukharji, C. N. Laik
SK. MD. SOLEMAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND - Respondent
A. F. O. O. 24 Of 1963 And Matter No. 221 Of 1962
Decided On : MAY 01, 1963
The petitioner, a Pakistani national, applied for a license to run an eating house in Calcutta under Section 39 of the Calcutta Police Act, 1866. The Commissioner of Police refused to grant the license on the ground that the petitioner was not a citizen of India and that he did not have a good behavior record. The petitioner challenged the Commissioner's decision by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Commissioner had not acted arbitrarily or without jurisdiction. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Pakistani national, applied for a license to run an eating house in Calcutta under Section 39 of the Calcutta Police Act, 1866. The Commissioner of Police refused to grant the license on the ground that the petitioner was not a citizen of India and that he did not have a good behavior record. The petitioner challenged the Commissioner's decision by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Commissioner had not acted arbitrarily or without jurisdiction. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Commissioner of Police had not acted arbitrarily or without jurisdiction in refusing to grant the license. The Court held that the Commissioner had the discretion to grant or refuse licenses under Section 39 of the Calcutta Police Act, and that he had not abused his discretion in this case. The Court also held that the petitioner, as a non-citizen of India, did not have a fundamental right to carry on business in India, and that he could not enforce any other legal right under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the Commissioner of Police acted arbitrarily or without jurisdiction in refusing to grant the license? 2. Whether the petitioner, as a non-citizen of India, had a fundamental right to carry on business in India? 3. Whether the petitioner could enforce any other legal right under Article 226 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Commissioner of Police had the discretion to grant or refuse licenses under Section 39 of the Calcutta Police Act, and he had not abused his discretion in this case. 2. The petitioner, as a non-citizen of India, did not have a fundamental right to carry on business in India. 3. The petitioner could not enforce any other legal right under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
( 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. "
( 4 ) IT is this order which is challenged by the petitioner in this application. The challenge Is made on a number of grounds stated in the petition. In the first place, it is said that the refusal to grant the licence is illegal because the Commissioner of Police passed the order of refusal without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and showing cause against such refusal. In the second place, it is said that the impugned order of the Commissioner is against the statutory provisions and liable to be cancelled. In the third place, it is said that the Commissioner's decision is arbitrary and without any reason. In the fourth place, it is said that the Commissioner did not exercise his discretion reasonably and in accordance with the guiding principle laid down in Section 39 of the Calcutta Police Act. Lastly, the order is challenged on the ground that the Commissioner of Police presumably refused to renew the licence on grounds extraneous to the statute.
( 5 ) THE determination of the questions raised and the decision on this application depend in the first place on the scope and construction of Section 39 of the Calcutta Police Act. The Calcutta Police Act is an ancient Bengal Act of 1886 whose preamble said it was an Act to amend and consolidate the still older provisions of Act XIII of 1856 (for regulating the Police of the towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay) and of the Act XLVIII of 1860 (to amend Act XIII of 1856 ). This Act is about to score a century on the statute book but has survived and continues with life and vigour with occasional amendments in the stormy statutory history of the last hundred years in this country. Ancient wisdom appears to have strength to stand the batteries of the modern generation. The Calcutta Police Act, in one sense, is a legal museum and deals with a variety of miscellaneous subjects whose wealth and richness can astonish even the most progressive thinker of this age. Among other things it deals with such an array of subjects as apprehension of reputed thieves, penalty, for taking spirits into the barracks or such other sensitive places as vessels of war and jails, for keeping taverns, ale-houses, ganja, chandu or hemp shop, for harbouring deserters from merchant vessels, for stopping music, for owning and keeping gaming houses,
F.N.Roy v. Collector of Customs
A.K.Gopalan v. State of Madras
R.K.Dalmia v. Sri Justice Tcndolkar
Muhammed Amir Abbas Abbasi v. State of Madhya Bharat
Sewpujan Rai Indrasanrai Ltd. v. Collector of Customs
M.S.M.Sharma v. Srikrishna Sinha
Dwarkadas Shrinivas v. Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co., Ltd.
D.P.Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat
Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India
G.D.Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Fedco (P) Ltd. v. S.N.Bilgrami
Nain Sukh Das v. State of U.P.
Satish Chandra v. Union of India
Ramesh Thappar v. State of Madras
State of Bombay v. United Motors (India), Ltd.
Vice-Chancellor, Utkal University v. S.K.Ghosh
Glass Chatons Importers and Users Association v. Union of India
Bokaro and Ramgur, Ltd. v. State of Bihar
Y.M.Sherriff and Sons v. Mysore State Transport Authority
Commr. of Police v. Lakshmi Chand Gupta
Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Supdt. Presidency Jail, Calcutta
Calcutta Gas Co., (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal
State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal
Joyce v. Director of Public Prosecutions
K.N.Gumswaini v. State of Mysore
Shrinivasa Reddy v. State of Mysore
Jagan Nath Sathu v. Union of India
Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Abdul Khader
State of Bombay v. Bombay Education Society
State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal
Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India
Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana
Cooverji Bharucha v. Excise Commissioner, Ajmer
State of Madhya Pradesh v. G.C. Mandawar
Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi and Rajasthan
Referred to : Kishan Chand Arora v. Commr. of Police, Calcutta
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.