Power of Commissioner to cancel licence.

It required a lot of courage to have filed this petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Commissioner of Police suspending the licence of the petitioner to keep a lodging house, and the petitioner has been equal to it.

The petitioner was granted a licence to run a lodging house in the City and he was running it. While so, there was a raid on his premises on 28th May, 1955, by the local police and at that raid it was found that there were 11 girls there and 9 of them were occupying 9 of the rooms in that house each with a male person. The register of arrivals maintained in the premises did not contain the names of the girls but showed bogus names. A sum of Rs. 244 was found in the premises and was seized by the police. There were also four bottles including a water bottle all of which smelt of liquor. In these circumstances, the manager of this lodging house, who is the brother-in-law of the petitioner, and who was running it under the power of attorney granted by the petitioner himself, was arrested under the provisions of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act. He was prosecuted and convicted of an offence of permitting the house to be used as a brothel. These facts are admitted and not in dispute. Subsequent to the raid and before the termination of the prosecution against the petitioner’s brother-in-law the Assistant Commissioner of Police issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause why the licence granted to him for keeping the lodging house should not be cancelled for the reason that the raid disclosed that the premises had been used as a brothel house. The petitioner desired the proceedings to be postponed till the termination of the prosecution but this was refused and the petitioner was directed to submit his explanation and sufficient time was given to him for the purpose. Subsequently the Commissioner passed an order on 5th September, 1955, suspending the licence for a period of three months from the date of the receipt of his order. It is this order of suspension whose legality is challenged by the petitioner in this Writ Petition.

Mr. Seshadri his learned counsel urged four points in support of the petition. The first was this. The Commissioner of Police has purported to cancel the licence for breach of condition No. 4 of the licence. Condition 4 referred to reads thus:

“That he does not wilfully harbour reputed thieves, or disorderly or notorious bad characters in his said house or premises knowing or having reason to believe them to be such or permit any disorderly conduct or any gambling on his said premises.”

The argument addressed to me with great strenuousness was that none of the ingredients of this condition were satisfied before the Commissioner passed the order. First, that the petitioner was not harbouring any one of the class of persons mentioned in the condition. His argument was that harbouring meant giving aid, succour or protection to persons fleeing justice and that as the persons who occupied the house at the time of the police raid were not criminals or accused in any crime, there could be no harbouring and further that the persons who were found in the petitioner’s premises were not reputed thieves or notorious bad characters. But this argument ignores another limb of the clause which renders the “permitting” of any “disorderly conduct” on the premises a breach of the condition. I do not think it can be argued that the use of the premises for the purpose indicated in the Commissioner’s order can be characterised as anything else except the use of the premises for disorderly conduct. “Disorder” in this context does not mean that there should be rioting or affray. A bawdy house or a brothel is certainly a “disorderly house”. If the premises have been used for such purpose it is sufficient breach of the condition which will attract the power of the Commissioner to cancel it. It was next said that the Petitioner did not wilfully harbour the individuals found in h