JAMNADAS JETHANAND Vs. RAM AIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ for quashing the order passed by the Commissioner of of Police Ahmedabad dated January 7 1963 refusing to renew the petitioners licence and ordering him to close down the restaurant which he is at present conducting.

(2.) The facts leading to the present application are few and simple. On November 30 1963 the police raided the petitioners restaurant and in the course of that raid found a large quantity of illicit liquor kept in the terrace of the hotel building where the petitioner was conducting his restaurant. During the course of the raid the police discovered two facts-(1) that one Girdharlal Maganlal was found in the terrace and the police arrested him presumably on the ground of being in possession of of illicit liquor and (2) that one Choithram Hiranand the nephew of the petitioner was found at the counter and in charge of the restaurant the petitioner being then absent.

(3.) The petitioner bad been granted a licence under the Bombay Police Act XXII of 1951 but as the licence was to expire on December 31 1962 he had applied for its renewal. He had paid the licence fees for such renewal on November 20 1962 and had. along with those fees sent a further sum of Rs. 2/for having Choithram recognised as his agent. By his letter dated November 20 1962 the Commissioner of Police had informed the petitioner that his application for having his nephew Choithram recognised as his agent was granted and that he should get the aforesaid sum of Rs. 2/credited in the State Bank under the heading 19-Police and to forward the challan and the licence for endorsement by the authorities. By his order dated January 7 1963 the Commissioner of Police refused to renew the licence and called upon the petitioner to close his business. The ground given for the refusal to renew the licence was that the petitioner had committed breach of rules 9 and 14 of the rules made by the Commissioner of Police by virtue of the power reserved to him under sec. 33 of the aforesaid Act. The petitioner protested against the refusal and pointed out that he had not committed any breach of the said rules. On January 14 1963 he received a communication to the effect that the decision regarding refusal to renew his licence could not be altered