A N SINHA Vs. M C MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a circus owner. It is an itinerant circus and moves from place to place. On 1-6-1954, the petitioner made an application before the District Magistrate, Birbhum for a license to show his circus at Rampurhat and Nalhati, commencing from 2nd week of July to first week of August 1954. On 24-6-1954 the District Magistrate of Birbhum wrote to the petitioner stating as follows: "You are directed to apply for license after the harvest".

(2.) This Rule was issued on 6-7-1954 calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order dated 24-6-1954 should not be quashed and/or set aside and/or why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not issue directing him to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Bengal Places of Public Amusement Act (Act 10 of 1933) and/or why such further or other order or orders should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

(3.) The period for which the license was asked for has since expired. It appears that on 6-6-1955 the petitioner had been given liberty to show his circus at Rampurhat for the period from 7-6-1955 to 30-6-1955 but he has not been granted license with regard to Nalhati. So far as the actual application is concerned which is the subject matter of this Rule, the period having expired, I cannot make any order because such order will be infructuous. Mr. Dutt, however, invites me to say something with regard to Section 5(3) of the said Act, and as to whether it is open to the District Magistrate to refuse the grant of a license in this fashion or not, so that in future the circus owners would know what to expect. The proper thing of course would be to deal with the matter when an effective order could be made, but I think that It would be useful to say a few words on the provision of Section 5(3), for future guidance. Section 5(3) is as follows:--