GHAIO MALL & SONS versus THE STATE OF DELHI & OTHERS

Citation: [1959] 1 S.C.R. 1424 · Decided: 30-09-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
• 
. '· 
1424 
~UPREME COURT·~EPORTS • [1959) 
1958 
would like to add that th~y d~ not cor're&tly represent 
Sri Llaru Ram the effect of the relevant prnvisions of the Act. 
v 
The result is the appeal is allowed, the orrlrr passed 
sh.;,,,,.,; 
by the High Court i8 set aside and the election petition 
Prasanni & Othm filed by respondent l is dismissed with costs through-
Gaj1ndragadkar J. 
• 
1958 
Stptemb!r 30. 
• 
• 
• 
out. • 
• 
Appeal allowed . 
GHAIO MALL & SOXS 
1!. 
THE STATE OF DELHI & OTHERS 
• 
(S. R. DAS c. J., ?I<. H. BIIAGWATI, B. P. S1:-1HA, 
K. SnrnA RAO and IC ~- WANCIIOO JJ.) 
Certiorari, Writ of-Rule iss11<d on 
app!ic~lio11-D11ty of. 
inferior Courts and 1"ribunals-/j 'nust produce entire records. 
The appellant firm, an unsuccessful applicant for a license for 
vending foreign liquor in l\ew Delhi for the year 195.1-rg~. mewed 
the High Court under art. 226•of the Constitution for a wrij wf 
certiorari quashing the order granting the 
Iici~nst• to a ri\'al 
applicant ancl implcadcd the Chief Minister, the Excise Com-
missioner, the.Seeretary ancl the Cnder Secretary, Finance, of 
the State of Delhi, as it then was, as parties to the application. 
Its case in substance was that the applications macle for the 
grant of the licence were never placed before the Chief Commis-
sioner \vho alone \1,·as the competent authority to grant it under 
Ch. 5, r. I of the Delhi Liquor License Rules, r935, fraa1cd under 
s. 59 of the Punjab Excise Act (Punj. I of 1914). as extender! to 
J)eU1i. and no orclcr granting the license \vas ever made by him. 
The said opposite parties rcsponclcnts, 
although rcptatedly 
called upon by the High Court to do so, did not produce the 
entire records and file<l evasive affidavits and eventually pro-
duced a letter written by the Coder Secretary, finance, to the 
Excise Co1nmissjoncr intirnating that the Chief Commissioner 
had made th~ order for granting the license to the rival appli-
cant and maintained that th<: order had in fact been made by 
the Chief Commissioner. The High Court, under a misapprehen-
sion of fact and of the true nature and effect of that letter 
\vritten by the. C'ntler Sccrcta'ry, finance, to the Excise Con1mis-
sioncr, held"t!Tat th~ order had in fact been passed b~ the Chief 
•O::ommissioner. 
The production of the en,ire records in the 
• 
• • 
.. 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
' 
• 
• 
.. 
' 
• 
.\ . 
S.0.R. 
• fiUPREM;Eo COURT REPORT& 
1425 
Supreme Court rgac!e it clear,,and the respondents also conceded, 
that the applications were never piaced before the Chief Com-
missioner, nor any order granting the said license was ever 
made by him. What had happened was that upon an order 
made by the Chief Minister on the file in accordance with a note 
put up by the Under Secretary, Finance, the latter wrote a 
letter to the Excise Commissioner in rep! y to a previous. one of 
his, that the license might be granted to the said rival appli-
cant. That letter, on which the High Court had relied, was in 
the following terms,-
" With reference to your letter No. 295/C/54 dated the 
3rst Ai<gust, r954, on the above subject, I am directed to say 
that the Chief Commissioner is pleased to approve under 
Rule 5. r. of Delhi Excise Manual Vol. II the grant of L-2 
license to Messrs. Gainda Mall Hem Raj, New Delhi, in place of 
the L-2 License surrendered by Messrs. Army & Navy Stores, New 
Delhi. Necessary license may kindly be issued to the party 
cttncerned under intimation to this Secretariate ". 
There was nothing on the record to show that the Chief 
Commissioner had ever concurred in the order made by the Chief 
Minister on the file. 
Held. that the attempt of the official respondents to by-pass 
the Court must be strongly deprecated, and the order of the High 
,.., tourt must be •reversed. 
When a superior Court issues a rule on an application for a 
writ of ~rtiorari, it is incumbent upon the inferior Court or the 
q_uasi-judicial body, to whom the rule is addressed, to produce 
t&e•entire records along with the• return so that the superior 
Court may satisfy itself that the inferior Court or the quasi-
judicial body has not exceeded its lawful jurisdiction. Non-pro-
duction of such records, as in the instant case," must defeat the 
purpose which the \vrit has in view. 
Held, further, that in view of the undisputed practice that 
such a license, once granted by the Chief Commissioner, was 
almost automatically renewed by the Collector year to year, it 
could no

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