STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. TANWIR BANO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 15 of th Letters Patent by the State and its Officers is preferred against the judgment in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a single Judge of this court holding in a petition by the petitioner/respondent herein that the order of the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, refusing to renew the licence under section 39 of the Calcutta Police Act, 1866 is not valid and, consoquentially, directing the Commissioner of Police to pass a fresh order after supplying a copy of the reports that were used for refusing to renew the licence.

(2.) That some orders have been passed against the petitioner/respondent by which she has been denied the renewal of licence on the basis of some materials which were not furnished to her, ex-facie would appear to be violative of principles of natural justice. It would be too late in the day for any person to say that while exercising power under section 39 of the Police Act, 1866, the Commissioner of Police was not exercising a quasi judicial power. Since the Commissioner of Police exercised a quasi judicial power even if there has been no such specific Rule that before refusing to renew the licence opportunity of being heard would be afforded to the affected party, such opportunity had to be provided as one of the most eminent cardinal principles of natural justice. It so happened in the case of the petitioner/respondent at the first instance. When without affording such opportunity to her the Commissioner of Police communicated the order declining to renew the licence, the petitioner/respondent advisedly moved this court in W.P. No. 2238 of 1995. The learned single Judge of this court allowed the said petition and directed the Commissioner of Police to give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner/respondent. The impugned order has been passed after affording such opportunity.

(3.) This time, however, natural justice, it is alleged, is violated because the Commissioner of Police has placed reliance upon reports, copies of which were not furnished to the petitioner/respondent. To be precise, one may refer to the order of the Commissioner of Police which is impugned in the writ petition wherein it is mentioned, inter alia, that pursuant to the order in W.P. No. 2238 of 1995 an opportunity was afforded to the petitioner/respondent and she appeared through a learned Advocate who submitted an affidavit stating that she had nothing to say more than what is said in the affidavit dated 4.10.96. It is said in the order of the Commissioner of Police thereafter:-"However, on being questioned, she stated that no Trade Licence and Health Licence were issued to her by CMC. Authorities to run the Hotel 'Moghal Darbar' at 42A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Calcutta. The affidavit dated 4.10.96 and the affidavit dated 3.8.95 (annexure 3 of the writ petition) were carefully perused and contents noted. Whatever she has stated in the affidavit dated 4.10.96 do not corroborate with the enquiry reports of the Police Officers.