Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Bose
RATAN CHANDRA NAYAK - Appellant
Versus
ADHAR BISWAS - Respondent
Civil Revn. Case 532 Of 1951
Decided On : JULY 9, 1951
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 226 - MANDAMUS - LICENSE FOR RUNNING RICE MILL - SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL FACTS - NON-VERIFICATION OF PETITION BY PETITIONER - REASONABLENESS OF SYSTEM OF LICENSES - DISCRETION TO GRANT OR REFUSE LICENSE - ARBITRARY EXERCISE OF DISCRETION - DEMAND AND REFUSAL - DISMISSAL OF PETITION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, the proprietor of a husking machine, applied for a license under the West Bengal Rice Mills Control Order, 1949, but his application was not processed due to his failure to disclose his conviction for contravening the Control Order. He filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to issue a license.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had suppressed material facts in his petition, including his conviction for contravening the Control Order, and that the petition was not verified by the petitioner's affidavit as required by law. The court also held that the system of licenses under the Control Order was reasonable and that the discretion to grant or refuse a license was necessarily absolute in character.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had suppressed material facts in his petition. 2. Whether the petition was properly verified. 3. Whether the system of licenses under the Control Order was reasonable. 4. Whether the discretion to grant or refuse a license was absolute in character. 5. Whether there was a demand and refusal before the application for mandamus was made.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner had suppressed material facts in his petition, including his conviction for contravening the Control Order, and that this disentitled him to any relief. 2. The court held that the petition was not properly verified as it was not verified by the petitioner's affidavit as required by law. 3. The court held that the system of licenses under the Control Order was reasonable as it was necessary to regulate and control the trade and commerce of the country. 4. The court held that the discretion to grant or refuse a license was necessarily absolute in character as any restrictions or limitations on the discretion would render it no longer a matter of discretion. 5. The court held that there was no evidence of a demand and refusal before the application for mandamus was made.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition with costs.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226, of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to issue a License to the petitioner under the West Bengal Rice Mills Control Order, 1949, for running a Mill for the purpose of husking paddy.
( 2 ) THE petitioner is the proprietor of a husking machine known as Bani Rice Mill situated at Village Gograash, P. O. Raghunath Bari, in the District of idnapore.
( 3 ) THE petitioner had a license for the purpose of running his Mill being License No. 395 M. D. R. , dated 19-3-1947 issued to him under the Bengal Rice Mills Control Order, 1943.
( 4 ) THE said Control Order of 1943 was repealed in 1949 by the West Bengal Rice Mills Control Order, 1949 which came into force on 21-12-1949. The Control Order of 1949 provided that persons who were engaged in the business of milling rice were to take out a License under the Control Order 1949 within a month of the commencement of the Order. By a subsequent Notification the period of one month as provided in the Order was extended up to 31-3-1950 making the old license valid up to that date. On 21-1-1950 the petitioner made an application for issue of a license for one year under the Control Order 1949, and deposited the License fee of Rs. 50/- for the purpose. Permits were also issued under the Control Order to local consumers for getting their paddy husked at the petitioner's Mill and such permits enabled the petitioner to husk paddy for these consumers. The last of such Permits was issued on 14-3-1950 and remained in force till 14-6-1950.
( 5 ) IT appears that although the old license of the petitioner expired on 31-3-1950 he continued to carry on his business of husking paddy without obtaining a License from the Department concerned and he was also detected delivering husked rice to some persons without any permit after the last permit which was valid up to 14-6-1950 had expired. The petitioner was at once prosecuted under Section 7 (1), Essential Supplies (Temporary powers) Act, and ultimately on 28-12-1950 he was convicted and sentenced to pay Rs. 25/- or in default 2 days' rigorous imprisonment.
( 6 ) ON 12-3-1951 the petitioner moved this application for a Rule Nisi and such Rule was granted by this Court.
( 7 ) THE petitioner at the hearing has only pressed for the relief for the issue of a License and has not pressed for the other reliefs in view of my judgment delivered on 11-4-1951 in Civil Revision Case No. 346 of 1951.
( 8 ) IT is argued by Mr. Jogneswar Mazumdar, the Assistant Govt. Pleader that the petitioner has suppressed material facts in the petition and has thus disentitled himself to get any relief in this application. This contention does not appear to be without any substance. In the petition there is no mention of the fact that the petitioner was prosecuted for the contravention of the Control Order and was convicted for such contravention. The petitioner also asked for liberty to file a Supplementary affidavit and he has filed such supplementary affidavit in support of his petition. In this affidavit also there is no mention of this fact. It is clear that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed this very material fact in his petition as he realised that mention of this fact in the petition would create difficulties in the way of his getting a Rule Nisi issued from this Court. In 'rex v. Kensington Income-tax Commissioners' (1917) 1 K. B. 486 at p 509 Lord Warrington made the following observations:"it is perfectly well-settled that a person who makes an ex-parte application to Court is under an obligation to the Court to make the fullest possible disclosure of all material facts within his knowledge and if he does not make that fullest possible disclosure, then he cannot obtain any advantage which he may have already obtained by means of the Order which has thus wrongly been obtained by him. That is perfectly plain and requires no authority to justify it. "
( 9 ) THIS
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
