1943 Present: Wijeyewardene J.

NOORDEN v. CHAIRMAN,

Village Committee, Godapitiya.

 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF Mandamus.

Writ of mandamus-Application for a butcher's licence-Refusal by proper authority-Grounds not just and reasonable-Butcher's Ordinance (Cap. 201) s. 7.

Where a person who was carrying on the trade of a butcher applied for the renewal of his licence, and the proper authority refused his application on the ground that he must first purchase his right to obtain a licence,-

Held, that the applicant was entitled to a licence as the grounds upon which his application was refused by the proper authority, were not just and reasonable.

THIS was an application for a writ of mandamus.

A. Seyad Ahamed, for petitioner.

E. B. Wickremanayake (with him H. Wanigatunge), for respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

May 28, 1943. WIJEYEWARDENE J.-

This is an application for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the respondent directing him to grant a butcher's licence to the petitioner.

The petitioner carried on the trade of a butcher at Godapitiya in 1941 and 1942 on licences issued by the Assistant Government Agent, Matara, who was then the " proper authority " under the Butchers' Ordinance. The respondent was duly appointed in writing by the Assistant Government Agent under section 3 of that Ordinance as the " proper authority " for 1943 for the village area of Godapitiya. When the petitioner applied to the respondent for his licence for 1943, the respondent wrote to him on November 11, 1942, as follows : -

" The committee (i.e., the Village Committee) has decided to open two meat stalls at Godapitiya and to sell them by public auction for next year. Two licences to slaughter cattle will be issued to these persons who purchase the meat stalls at the auction. The renewal of your licence will be considered after the day of auction."

It was further stated by the petitioner in his affidavit-

(a) that no meat stalls were established by the Village Committee as undertaken in the respondent's letter.

(b) that the respondent sold, in fact, what " he called the right to obtain a licence" to one Haniffa for Rs. 200 and then issued licences to Haniffa.

(c) that the petitioner's application for a licence was refused on the ground that" he did not buy the right to obtain a licence ".

Showing cause against the order nisi served on him, the respondent filed an affidavit which was extremely vague and inconclusive in its character. On my directing him to file a further affidavit setting out definitely his position with regard to the various material allegations

made in the petitioner's affidavit, the respondent submitted a second affidavit. In that affidavit the respondent has attempted to justify his action by reference to a resolution passed by the Village Committee to establish two meat stalls at Godapitiya to be sold " by public auction by means of tender" and to issue the butcher's licences only to the " purchasers" of the meat stalls so established. He has, however, admitted that no meat stall have, in fact, been established by the Village Committee at Godapitiya and has not denied that Haniffa to whom the licences were issued had paid Rs. 200 in " purchasing" the non-existent meat stalls in order to qualify himself as an applicant for the licences. The respondent has also sought to justify the refusal of a licence to the petitioner on the ground that " the needs of the inhabitants of the village were sufficiently served " by the issue of licences to Haniffa.

One fact emerges clearly from these affidavits and it is that the respondent purporting to act on a resolution passed by the Village Committee refused to issue a butcher's licence to the petitioner as he did not purchase at a " public auction by tender" what has been termed " a right to obtain a licence ".

Now section 4 of the Butchers' Ordinance requires every person carrying on the trade of a b