9911796707
TMI Blog1951 (7) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ghunath Bari, in the District of idnapore. 3. The petitioner had a license for the purpose of running his Mill being License No. 395 M.D.R., dated 19-3-1947 issued to him under the Bengal Rice Mills Control Order, 1943. 4. The said Control Order of 1943 was repealed in 1949 by the West Bengal Rice Mills Control Order, 1949 which came into force on 21-12-1949. The Control Order of 1949 provided that persons who were engaged in the business of milling rice were to take out a License under the Control Order 1949 within a month of the commencement of the Order. By a subsequent Notification the period of one month as provided in the Order was extended up to 31-3-1950 making the old license valid up to that date. On 21-1-1950 the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led himself to get any relief in this application. This contention does not appear to be without any substance. In the petition there is no mention of the fact that the petitioner was prosecuted for the contravention of the Control Order was convicted for such contravention. The petitioner also asked for liberty to file a Supplementary affidavit he has filed such supplementary affidavit in support of his petition. In this affidavit also there is no mention of this fact. It is clear that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed this very material fact in his petition as he realised that mention of this fact in the petition would create difficulties in the way of his getting a Rule Nisi issued from this Court. In 'Rex v. Kensington ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the effect of that judgment. In 'P. K. Banerjee v. L. J. Simonds'. AIR1947Cal307 at p. 317, Gentle J.', held that an affidavit by a manager was not a sufficient compliance with Section 46, Specific Relief Act, the application was not maintainable. This petition must therefore fail on this ground also. 12. It was contended by Mr. Sisir Das, learned counsel for the petitioner that the very system of Licenses as contemplated by the West Bengal Rice Mills Control Order 1949 is unreasonable as it imposes restrictions on the right to carry on trade or business freely as guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution. Mr. Das has further contended that in any event para 11 of the Rice Mills Control Order is unreasonable bad as it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iscretion is no exercise at all. 14. So far as the merits are concerned the true facts appear to be that after the prosecution of the petitioner for contraventions of the Rice Mills Control Order ended in his conviction on 28-12-1950 the petitioner did no approach the Authorities any more for issue of a license to him as he perhaps despaired of getting any license after his conviction. It is denied in the counter-affidavit that there was any demand or refusal before this application for mandamus was made. The petition only sets out vaguely that the renewal of license was refused (Para 8). The petition does not set out clearly that any demand for performance preceded this application for prerogative writ. 15. In my view this petition m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
