MUHAMMAD ISRAIL Vs. PATNA CITY MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's Letters Patent appeal from a decision of Agarwala, J. in second appeal allowing an appeal from the learned District Judge of Patna and dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff, who was a butcher, carried on business of selling meat including beef in Mahalla Moharampur, Bakerganj, Patna. It appears that he had carried on this business since the year 1931 with a break of a year and had annually obtained a license from the Patna Municipality for that purpose. The plaintiff applied for a renewal of his license for the year 1936-37, but the application was rejected by the Chairman of the Municipality. The effect of such refusal to renew the license was that the plaintiff could not carry on his business as a butcher for the year 1936-37. The plaintiff appealed from the order of the Chairman to the Commissioner under Section 873, Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922, but this appeal was dismissed. The plaintiff then instituted the suit which has given rise to this appeal. He prayed for a declaration that the order of the Chairman rejecting his application for renewal of the license and the order of the municipality dismissing his appeal were illegal, void and ultra vires and not binding upon him. He further prayed that the municipality should be directed to renew the license, and in case of failure, he asked that a license should be given to him by the Court.

(2.) The learned Munsif, who heard the case at first instance, dismissed the suit, holding that the order of the Chairman was made with jurisdiction as alleged by the municipality and, therefore, could not be challenged in a civil Court. On appeal the learned District Judge of Patna reversed the decree of the learned Munsii holding that the rejection of the application for renewal was wholly without jurisdiction and made the declaration asked for. In the second appeal, Agarwala, J. held that the decision of the Chairman of the Municipality could not be challenged in a civil Court and consequently reversed the decree of the lower appellate Court and dismissed the suit in its entirety.

(3.) To appreciate the points involved, it will be necessary shortly to set out the facts leading up to the order of the Chairman. As I have stated, the plaintiff had carried on the business of selling meat in the shop in question with one break since the year 1931. He had applied annually for a renewal of his license, and such had been granted. Difficulties, however, arose over the application for the license for the years 1936-1937. It appears that the Hindus in the locality objected to a meat shop being carried on in the Mohalla, and they had presented a petition to the District Magistrate. On this petition the District Magistrate informed the Patna Municipality that he did not think there was any real necessity for a beef shop in that locality and added that in his view the license should not be renewed for the following year. This order, if it can be called an order, was made by the learned District Magistrate on 16 November 1935. The application for renewal of the license was made by the plaintiff some time in 1936, and the order of rejection was made by the Chairman of the Municipality on 20 April 1936. The order is in these terms: "I have gone through it. Under the circumstances the application is rejected."