COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BOMBAY versus GORDHANDAS BHANJI

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 135 · Decided: 23-11-1951 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C:R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
135 
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BOMBAY 
v • 
. GORDHANDAS BHANJI 
[SA1YID FAZL Au, 
MEHER CHAND 
MAHAJAN and 
VIVIAN.BOSE JJ.] 
City of Bombay Police Act (/ of 1902), s. 22 (1)-Rules under 
tfie Act, rr. 8, 238 to 257, 263 to 283-Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), 
s. 45-Licence for construction of cinema-Duties of Commissioner 
~' 
of Po/ice-Permission granted by Commissioner-Cancellation of 
licence. by 
Government-Validity 
of 
cancellation-Discretion 
of 
Commissioner-Duty 
to . . exercise 
. discretion-Application 
for 
mandamus to order Commissioner to grant permission-Maintain-
abilit~P:aper 1'elief-:Publi<l 
orders-Conswuct~onJ--iReference 
to• 
explanif.tions given subsequently-Propriety of. 
'.An . application by · the respondent for permission to build a 
cinema on a site within the City of Bombay was rejected by the 
Commissioner of Police, Bombay. 
The respondent applied 
for 
re-consideration of his application and the 
Commissioner, 
acting 
on the advice of the Cinema Advisory 
Committee, granted the 
application on the 16th July, 1947, though he indicated in an 
affidavit filed later that but for this advice he would have refused 
the 
application 
again. 
Subsequently, 
under 
instructions 
from 
Government the Commissioner sent the following communication 
to the respondent : "I am directed by Government to inform 
you that the permission to erect a cinema at the above site grant-
ed to you under the office letter dated 16th July, 1967, is hereby 
cancelled." 
The respondent applied to the High Court of Bom-
bay for an order under s • 45 of the Specific Relief Act directing 
the Commissioner, of Police, Bombay, to withdraw the cancella-
tion and to grant permission for the erection of the cinema, and 
the High Court directed the Commissioner of Police "to withdraw 
the· order of cancellation passed by him," 
The Commissioner of 
Police appealed to the Supreme Court. 
Held, (i) that there was nothing in the letter dated 16th July, 
1947, to indicate that the decision was not that of the Commis-
sioner himself given in the bona fide exercise of the discretion 
vested in him. The sanction was not consequently invalid merely 
because the Commissioner decided to accept the advice of 
the 
Cinema Advisory Committee even though without that advice be 
would not have granted the permission. 
(ii) There was no valid cancellation of the licence because 
(a), the order of cancellation communicated to the respondent 
was one made by the Government of Bombay and not by the 
Comq:iissioner on his own authority ; he acted 
in the 
matter 
only as a transmitting agent ; (b), under the rules framed under 
1951 
No11. 23. 
136 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[J:95.2] 
:1951 
Conimissio.ner of 
Police, Bombay 
section 22 (1) (f), (l) (g) and (n) of the City of Bombay Police Act 
1902 the Government of Bon1bay had no power to ·cancel 
a 
licence once issued. 
The only person vested with authority to 
grant or refuse a licence for the erection of a building to be 
v. 
Gordhandas 
Bhanji. 
used for 
purposes 
of 
public 
amuse1nent is 
the Commissioner 
of Police. 
(iii) The relief 
sought by the respondent of an injunction to 
direct the Commissioner of Police to grant permission for the 
erection of a cineina could not be granted because he had already 
granted 
permission 
and 
there 
\\"as 
no 
valid 
order 
of 
can-
cellation. 
(iv) The other 
relief 
asking for an injunction 
directing 
the Commissioner to withdra\V the cancellation also could not be 
granted because Rule 250 vests the Commissioner with an ab-
solute discretion in the matter. 
( v) Though there was no specific provision of law compel-
ling the Commissioner to exercise the discretion vested in him 
under 
Rule 
250, 
inasmuch 
as 
the enabling power vested by 
Rule 250 was vested in the Commissioner for the welfare <>f the 
public at large it was coupled with a duty to exercise it \¥hen 
the circumstances so demanded. 
The Commissioner could con-
sequently be ordered under s. 45 of the Specific Relief Act to 
exercise his discretion and decide "vhether the licence should or 
should not be cancelled. 
,_ 
(vi} The words .. any law" in s. 45 <lo not mean statutory 
law alone but embrace all kinds of law whether referable to a 
statutory prov1s1011 
or 
otherwise. 
Therefore the 
performance 
of duties under the rules can be compelled under the provi-
.-L:... 
sions of s. 45. 
( vii)There was no other specific and adequate legal reme

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.