9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Application for a writ of Mandamus directing the issuance of a license under the West Bengal Rice Mills Control Order, 1949. 2. Allegations of suppression of material facts by the petitioner. 3. Verification of the petition for the writ of Mandamus. 4. Contention regarding the reasonableness of the licensing system under the Control Order. 5. Discretionary power vested in the Authority for granting or refusing licenses. Analysis: 1. The judgment pertains to an application under Article 226 for a writ of Mandamus to direct the issuance of a license under the West Bengal Rice Mills Control Order, 1949. The petitioner, a husking mill proprietor, had an expired license and continued operations without a new license. Subsequently, the petitioner was convicted for contravention of the Control Order. The court noted the suppression of material facts by the petitioner, leading to a failure of the application solely on this ground. 2. The petitioner's failure to disclose the prosecution and conviction for contravention of the Control Order was deemed significant. The court cited the obligation to make full disclosure of material facts, as established in legal precedents, to prevent the petitioner from benefiting from an improperly obtained order. The principle of disclosure was considered crucial in applications for prerogative writs, leading to the dismissal of the petition. 3. The verification of the petition for the writ of Mandamus was found to be deficient as it was not verified by the petitioner but by a Tadbirkar. Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized the need for compliance with specific requirements, highlighting that an affidavit by a manager was insufficient. Consequently, the petition failed on this ground as well. 4. The judgment addressed the contention regarding the reasonableness of the licensing system under the Control Order. The court rejected arguments challenging the system's reasonableness, emphasizing the government's role in regulating trade to prevent chaos and unfair practices. It was highlighted that public interest necessitates government control over trade and commerce, with individual interests yielding to the general good. 5. Regarding the discretionary power vested in the Authority for granting or refusing licenses, the court emphasized that a reasonable licensing system requires absolute discretion. The court clarified that discretion, if arbitrarily exercised, could be corrected by the court. The judgment highlighted that an arbitrary exercise of discretion is deemed invalid, but absolute discretion is essential for effective regulation. In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition for the writ of Mandamus, citing the petitioner's suppression of material facts, inadequate verification, and the reasonableness of the licensing system under the Control Order. The judgment underscored the importance of full disclosure, compliance with legal requirements, and the necessity of absolute discretion in a reasonable licensing system.
|
