Suitability of place of auction for grant of licence.

On the 1st November, 1951, the petitioner applied to the Commissioner of Police, Madras City, for a licence to conduct the business in auction sale of pledged jewels, etc., with the mortgagees under the name and style of Bharat and Co., at premises No. 69, Perumal Mudali Street, Sowcarpet, Madras. In that application he stated that he is a landlord paying property tax of Rs. 1,147-14-0, to the Corporation of Madras. A reply was sent by the Commissioner on 19th December, 1951, stating that permission was refused as the premises was reported to be unsuitable. Again the petitioner filed another application wherein he stated that the premises is situated in a very busy locality which is in the heart and centre of the business in the city and is an ideal place for conducting transactions of the nature for which permission was asked for. Under the circumstances he prayed that the order refusing approval may be reviewed. The reply to this letter dated 9th April, 1952, is as follows:

“Premises No. 69, Perumal Mudali Street, Sowcarpet, Madras, where auction sale of pledges is proposed to be held is found to be unsuitable for the purpose as the space available is inadequate. It is situated in a narrow lane, and is not easily accessible to the public. I therefore do not see any reason to modify the orders passed in this office No. 37091/F.-4/51 dated 19th December, 1951”.

Not being satisfied with this reply, a further petition for reconsideration of the above order was put in. There various grounds are stated to the effect that the premises would be ideal for the conduct of such business. On the 30th April, 1952, also another letter was sent. The reply of the Commissioner dated 2nd May, 1952, reiterated the fact that premises No. 69, Perumal Mudali Street, Sowcarpet, the first floor of which is sought to be used as the place for conducting auction, is small and very difficult for the public to reach. It is also stated that the staircase leading to it is very narrow, rendering free passage both way difficult. The Commissioner of Police therefore stated that there was no ground for reconsideration. But the Commissioner said that he had no objection for granting the permission provided the petitioner selected a suitable place with accommodation and free passage to the hall. By letter dated 7th May, 1952, the petitioner requested the Commissioner of Police to inspect the hall to ascertain its suitability. The Commissioner accordingly inspected the place and finally by order dated 8th July, 1952, he confirmed the original order stating that permission cannot be granted. Further correspondence passed between the petitioner and the Commissioner of Police to which it is unnecessary to refer at present. An appeal against the order of the Commissioner was taken to the Inspector-General of Police, who confirmed the order of the Commissioner. The petitioner took up the matter with the State Government wherein also he was unsuccessful. He therefore comes up to this Court for the issue of a writ of certiorari on the ground that the order refusing him permission to conduct the auction is without jurisdiction.

The main argument of Mr. Chinnappa Reddi for the petitioner is that the entire approach to the question by the authorities is from a wrong angle and that they have not decided what really is the question for adjudication and such being the case, there had been a failure to exercise jurisdiction. It is under section 22 of the Madras Pawn Brokers Act, 1943, Act (XXIII of 1943), that rules have been ramed with respect to the regulation of auction of pawned or pledged articles. What the petitioner now wants is permission to act as an auctioneer of things or articles which are the subject-matter of pledge or pawn under the Pawn Brokers Act, 1943. Section 3 of the Act prohibits the continuance or carrying on of business as a pawn broker at any place in the area to which the Act applies unless he has obtained a pawn broker’s licence under the Act. I