SURENDRA NATH BOSE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in this case are shortly as follows:

(2.) The Petitioner also applied for a settlement of the shop. It appears that he had a country spirit shop in the town of Bogra for a number of years. He says that he was deprived of this license upon the allegation that he was a fifth columnist. The usual advertisements were issued and the Collector proceeded to consider the applications. By an order, dated August 20, 1952, the Collector held that Tarapada was not entitled to the license because he was not satisfied that Tarapada had been actually helping his father in the management of the shop. He ordered that the shop be settled with the Petitioner.

(3.) There was an appeal by Shrimati Bhanumati and Tarapada Batabyal to the Commissioner of Excise against this order. The Commissioner also held that the Appellants had not satisfied the terms of the "Martin Circular" and he, by his order, dated October 28, 1952, refused to interfere. The Appellants then applied to the Government of West Bengal for a revision of the order. The matter came up for hearing before the Minister-in-charge of Excise. It appears that he heard lawyers appearing on behalf of the parties. Two affidavits were filed on behalf of the Batabyals in spite of the protest of the Petitioner's lawyers. No opportunity was given to the Petitioner to controvert the contents thereof. I shall revert to this aspect of the case presently. By his order, dated April 2, 1953, the Minister-in--charge of Excise allowed the revision petition and set aside the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner. This order is challenged in this Rule. This Rule was issued on May 11, 1953, calling upon the Respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of mandamus should not be issued, directing the Respondents to forbear from enforcing the impugned order.