LexKHATKI AHMED MUSHABHAI versus LIMDI MUNICIPALITY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B 338 KHA TKI AHMED MUSHABHAI v. LIMDI MUNICIPALITY November 20, 1978 (V. R. KRISHNA IYER, P. N. SHINGHAL AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] Right to a licence-When the bye laws permit the lic~ncing authority to grant or to refuse licences, whether said to offend Art. 19'(1)(a) of th~ Constitu- tion of India, 1950. Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court, C HELD : 1. No butcher, baker or circus manager can say that he has the· D E unqua.lified right to get a licence on mere application. It is open to the Ik:enc- ing C-Ouncil-Indeed, is obligatory on its part-to take note of all relevant cir- cumstances and then decide whether, in the particular spot chosen by the particular applicant, a licence should be granted or not. (339C-D] 2. Various factors enter the verdict and the local authorities are the best judge of the factual factors, not the Courti especially, the Supreme Court at the third tier. The factual factors may be many, like the proximity to schools, public institutions and also residents of the locality plus the reaction or irnpact on those IDstitutions and residents, the unren.sonableness to grant licence to the same person or one for the father and another for the son, the need for an extra shop, other considerations which are germane from peace-keeping and welfare-oriented view-points etc. Certainly granting a lease solely because· some·Onc offers a_ large donation to the Municipality may not be ccrrect. [339D, F·G, 340B] 3. No doubt Municipal discretion should be exercised rationally, not religi· ou~ly nor ritually and judicial discretion should go into anxiously, not impetu- ously nor. in disregard of the pragmatic guideline that local authorities are the· best judges of local conditions. Of course, if irrelevant criteria or perverse application Vitiate the decision, courts will guardian the rule of Jaw againat F little tyran~ trampling over people's rights or local factions fouling the G council's verdict. [340C-DJ Tn the instant cooe, the ground on w·hich the Municipal body has refuseti: licence is not irrelevant and cannot be described 3.S un1easonablc within the meaning of Art. 19(6) of the Constitution. [339C] Mohd. Faruk v. M. P. State, [1970] 1 SCR 156; inapplicable. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2939 of 1978. Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 4-10-1978 of the Gujarat High Caurt in Special Civil Application No. 1174 of 1977. II M. V. Goswami for the Petitioner. P. M. Raval, P. H. Parekh, C. B. Singh and M. Mudgal for tke R~pondent. ..1. , .. • 1. KHATICT AHMED v. L!MDI MUNICIPALITY (Krishna Iyer,!.) 339 The Order of the Court was delivered by KitlSHNA IYER, J. The petitioner's counsel, in his fighting submis- sion, argues that his client's fundamentaJ right to a licence for a meat shop has been flouted by the little Limdi Municipality, founding himself on a decision of this Court in Mohd. Faruk v. M. P. State( 1). That A decision hardly helps. There a byelaw was challenged as violative of B Art. 19 ( 1) (g) . Here there is no law whatever which bans the grant of meat licences. Indeed, thern are three other licensed meat stalls and the petitioner himself had a meat licence in a shop leased to him by the same Municipality earlier which by efllux of time had expired. The law vests a discretion to be reasonably exercised in the context of citi- zen's fundamental right. The ground on which the Municipal body has refused licence here is not irrelevant and cannot be described as unreasonable within the meaning of Art. 19 ( 6) of the Constitution. The bye-laws permit the municipality, as the licensing authority, to grant or to refuse licences. No butcher, baker or circus manager can say that he has the. unqualified right to get a licence on mere application. It is open to the licensing council-indeed, is obligatory on its part-to take note. of aJl relevant circumi;tances and then decide whether, in the parti- cular spot chosen by the particular applicallt,, a licence should be granted. Various factors enter the verdict and the locaJ authorities are the best judge of these factual factors, not the court, especially this Court sitting at the third tier. The, Limdi Municipality is stated to be a small one with a population of around 25000. It is admitted that there are three licensed meat vendors including one who iS the father of the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.