PURSHOTTAM BAHEL Vs. A.C. BARUAH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the appellate order dated 11th January 1971 passed by the Commissioner of Plains Division. Assam, affirming the order of the Chairman. Jorhat Municipal Board dated 9th April 1970 directing the Petitioner to close down his hotel and restaurant with immediate effect and order dated 19 -12 -69 passed by the Chairman. Jorhat Municipal Board rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner for renewal of his license.

(2.) THE Petitioner's case is as follows: The Petitioner opened a restaurant in 19G7 Under a valid license No. 172 dated 4 -12 -67 for the year 1967 -68 issued by the Jorhat Municipal Board (herein -after referred to as the Board) and his license was renewed till 1969. He applied for the renewal of his license on 15 -4 -69 for the year 1969 -70. By his letter No. 5049 dated 19 -12 -69 the Chairman of the Municipal Board reliving on some report of the Excise Superintendent held that the Petitioner violated an express condition of the license, namely, not to sell, allow use of liquor in the hotel and directed the Petitioner to close down his hotel and restaurant within seven days. The said letter of the Chairman of the Municipal Board is at Annexure I to the petition. On 26 -12 -69 the Petitioner submitted another application praying for reconsideration of the decision of the Board. In his application he denied to have ever violated any of the conditions of the license or that the Excise Inspector had seized any liquor from his hotel premises. It was further stated that the Excise Inspector's allegation of seizure of liquor from the hotel premises of the Petitioner was sub judice and it should not be accepted as correct.

(3.) MR . A.R. Bartnakur, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Chairman or the Board in refusing to renew the license acted illegally and in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore the impugned orders 'of the Board and the Commissioner, are liable to be quashed.