CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA versus CALCUTTA TRAMWAYS CO. LTD.

Citation: [1964] 5 S.C.R. 25 · Decided: 04-10-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Directions issued

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

Judgment (excerpt)

, 
I _,. 
5 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
25 
enquiry about the collection of the amount of Rs. 28,000 
1963 
and the destination thereof, it was imputed against 
Bhanwarlal that he had defrauded the agriculturists Mohan Singh 
and misappropriated the amount collected, the in-
v. 
ference that the statement made was to the knowledge 
Bhanwarlal 
of the maker false or was not believed by him to be 
true, would readily be made. 
The imputation was 
Shah J. 
on the face of it one reasonably calculated to prejudice 
the prospects of the candidate Bhanwarlal at the 
election. The High Court was therefore right in 
holding that the corrupt practice charged against 
the appellant Mohan Singh under s. 123 (4) was 
established. 
The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA 
v. 
CALCUTTA TRAMWAYS CO. LTD. 
(P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. 
SUBBA RAO, 
K.N. 
WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL JJ.) 
Constitution of India, Art. 19(1) (g) and (f}-Enactment making 
1963 
October 4 
A 
.I 
opinion of Corporation conclusive and non-justiciable-If reasonable 
restriction-Severability-Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 (W.B. 
Act 33 of 1951), s. 437(1) (b). 
/ 
The respondent company got its supply of electricity from the 
Calcutta Electric Supply Co., converted the same from alternate 
current to direct current in its transformer house for running its 
tram-cars. The appellant Corporation was of opinion that the 
use of the premises as transformer house was dangerous to life, 
health and property and was likely to cause a nuisance and asked 
the respondent to take a licence under s. 437(1)(b) of the Calcutta 
Municipal Act, 1951. The respondent refused to do so and was 
therefore prosecuted under s. 537 of the Act. The trial Magistrate 
held in favour of the appellant and convicted the respondent and 
ientenced it to pay a fine of Rs. 100 only. The respondent moved 
26 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964] 
1963 
the High Court in revision. That Court held that the' provision 
ins. 437(1) (b) which made the opinion the Corporation conclusive 
Corporation of and non-justiciable unreasonably restricted the fundamental right 
Calcutta 
enshrined in Art. 19(1) (g) of the Constitution and since that pro-
v. 
vision was inseverable the entire section was unconstitutional. 
Calcutta Tram- AThe corporation appealed to this Court. Section 437(l)(b) of the 
C 
Ltd 
ct provided as follows,-
ways 
o., 
. 
"( 1) No person shall use or permit or suffer to be used any 
premises for any of the following purposes without or other-
wise than in conformity with the terms of a licence granted 
by the Commissioner in this behalf, namely,-. 
(a) 
(b) any purpose which is, in the opinion of the Corporation 
(which opinion shall be conclusive and shall not be challenged 
in any court) dangerous to life, health or property, or likely 
to create a nuisance.'' 
Held: The power conferred on the Corporation bys. 437(I)(b) 
of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, in the parenthetical clause 
"which opinion shall be conclusive and shall not be challenged 
in any court" which was in the nature of a procedural provision, 
was an unreasonable restriction within the meaning of Art. 19(6) of 
the Constitution and must be struck down. The clause makes 
the opinion of the Corporation, however unreasonable, capricious 
and arbitrary, conclusive and non-justiciable and thereby places 
trade and business within the municipal limits entirely at the mercy 
of the Corporation, even though it may not act ma/a fide. 
The decision of this Court in Joseph Kuruvilla Ve/lukunnel 
v. Reserve Bank of India, must be confined to the special circum-
stances of the trade of banking and cannot be extended as a matter 
of course to other cases involving substantially similar provisions 
and each case should be judged on its own merits. 
Joseph Kuruvilla Vellukunnel v. The Reserve Bank of India, 
(1962] Supp .. 3 S.C.R. 632, held inapplicable. 
So judged in the light of the principles laid down by this Court, 
the parenthetical clause was severable from the rest of the section 
and, consequently. that clause a1one, and not t~e entire section 
should be struck down. The scheme of the section was not 
so 
integrated as to indicate that the Legislature wanted it to be opera-
tive as a whole. 
Dr. N.B. Khare v. State of Delhi, [1950] S.C.R. 519 and R.M.D. 
Chamarbaugwalla v. 
Union ~f India, [1957] S.C.R. 930, relied 
on. 
' 
·-~ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal

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