RAM NATH DIWANCHAND Vs. DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Ram Nath, proprietor of the Jai bharat Printing Press, who seeks orders from this Court to compel the first respondent, the Delhi municipal Committee, to renew certain licences issued to the petitioner with regard to his printing press. For some reason or other the State of Delhi has also been impleaded as a respondent, but, as it would seem, quite unnecessarily. The petitioner's allegations are that he came to Delhi, in 1947 as refugee and in due course set up a printing press in certain premises allotted to him. by the Custodian of Evacuee Property at no. 3137-3190, Bahadur Garh Road, in the city of Delhi. He began working the press with a three horsepower diesel oil engine apparently without a licence, out when the fact that he required a licence was-drawn to his notice by the Municipal Committee in September 1949 he successfully applied for a licence, which was granted to him for running his-engine by day time, and was renewed annually up to the year 1952-53, ending on 31-3-1953. He also acquired a four horse power electric motor which he wanted to use, but he was informed in January 1950 by the delhi Province Electricity Power Control Board that he could only be granted electric energy between the hours of 11 p. m. , to 7 a. m. and that too subject to his obtaining a licence from the municipal Committee for night working, he thereupon successfully applied to the Municipal Committee for a separate licence to work, his electric motor during the night hours, and he held a licence for this for the years 1950-51 and 1951-52 ending on 31-3-1952. Thereafter, however, his licence for the night working of the electric motor was only renewed up to 31-12-1952, the terms of the licence being that he was granted, a four horse power electric motor, night load, licence up to 31-12-1952 with a definite instruction that his licence would not be renewed after that date if the night load were not converted into a day load.

(2.) IN January 1953 he was informed that as he had not been able to obtain a day load of electricity, his application for renewal of this licence was rejected, and subsequently after 31-3-1953 when he again applied for the renewal of both his licences he was informed by a letter dated 5-6-1953 that not only his night licence for the electric motor, but also his day licence for the diesel engine, had been revoked. He claims that his fundamental rights have been infringed and seeks orders from this Court not only compelling the Municipal Committee to renew both his licences, but also to refrain from prosecuting him for running his press without a licence and to withdraw any prosecution which may have already been instituted.

(3.) BRIEFLY the case of the Municipal Committee is that his night licence was only renewed up to the end of 1952 on the definite condition that it would not be renewed thereafter for the running of the electric motor at night in pursuance of a resolution of the Municipal Committee, and that his licence for running his diesel oil engine in the day time was also revokes because the running of the press in this area was detrimental to public health and comfort, and complaints had been received. It was contended that the question of the revoking of the licence was discretionary and that the action of the Municipal Committee in this case was 'bona fide'.