LexKISHAN CHAND ARORA versus COMMISSIONER OP POLICE, CALCUTTA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
3 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
135
Article 136 of the Constitution confers ·a wide dis-
z96o
cretionary power on this Court to entertain appeals·
.
'd d ,.
b
h
Sanwat Singh
in suitable cases not oth,erw1se prov1 e ior y t e
.,. Othe"
Constitution. It is implicit in the reserve power that
v.
it ca.nnot be exhaustively defined, but decided cases state of Rajasthan
do not permit interference unless "by disregard to the
forms of legal process or some violation of the prin-
Subba Rao J.
ciples of natural justice or otherwise, substantial and
grave injustice has been done". Though Art. 136 is
couched in widest terms, the practice of this Court is
not to interfere on questions of fact except iu excep-
tional cases when the finding is such that it shocks
the conscience of the court. In the present case, the
High Court has not contravened any of the principles
laid down in Shea Swarup's case(') and has also
given reasons which led it to hold that the acquittal
was not jilstified. In the circumstances, no case has
?een made out for our not accepting the said find-
mgs.
In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed,.
KISHAN CHAND ARORA
v.
COMMISSIONER OP POLICE, CALCUTT A
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., J. L. KAPUR, P. B. GAJENDRAGAD-
KAR, K. SUBBA RAO and K. N. WANCHoo, JJ.)
Eating House-Power to grant license-Discretion vested in
Police Commissioner -
Constitutionality -
Calcutta Police Act,
r866 (IV of r866), s. 39-Constitution of India, Arts. r9(r)(g),
r9(6).
By s. 39 of the Calcutta Police Act, 1866, "The Commis-
s_ioner of Police, may, at his discretion from time t~ time, grant
licenses to the keepers of such houses or places of public resort
and entertainment as aforesaid for which no licence as is specified
in the Bengal Excise Act, 1909, is required upon such conditions,
(1) (1934) L.R. 61 I.A. 398.
December 9.
Kishan Chand
Aro1a
v.
Com111issioner oj
Police, Calcutta
136
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
to be inserted in every such license, as he, with the sanction of
the said State Government from time to time shall order, for
securing the good behaviour of the keepers of the said houses or
places of public resort or entertainment, and the prevention of
drunkenness and disorder among the persons frequenting or using
the same; and the said licenses may be granted by the said Com-
missioner, for any time not exceedipg one year".
The petitioner, whose application for a license in respect of
·an eating house was refused by the Commissioner of Police, Cal-
cutta, under the section, challenged its constitutional validity on
the ground that it conferred arbitrary and unguided powers on
the Commissioner to grant or refuse a license without hearing
the applicant and was, therefore, an unreasonable restriction on
his fundamental right to carry on his trade guaranteed by Art.
rg(r)(g) of the Constitution.
Held, (per Kapur, Gajendragadkar and Wanchoo, JJ.), that
in order to decide whether a provision in a pre-Constitution
statute, like the one in question, satisfies the test of constitutio-
nality laid down by Art. rg(r)(g) read with Art. r9(6) of the Con-
stitution, the impugned section has to be read as a whole in a
fair and reasonable manner and it should not be declared void
simply because the considerations relevant to those Articles are
not immediately apparent from its language. It is not correct
to say that the discretion conferred on the Commissioner by the
first part of the section is absolute and that the question of im-
posing the two conditions mentioned by the second part can arise
only after the grant of the license. The two parts, read together,
can lead only to the conclusion that the discretion vested in the
Commissioner is guided by the two conditions mentioned in the
section, namely, the securing of good behaviour and the preven-
tion of drunkenness and disorder and a third by necessary impli-
cation, that the applicant must have actual and effective
control and possession of the place where he keeps the eating
house.
Section 39 of the Calcutta Police Act, 1866, therefore, con-
fers no arbitrary or uncanalised discretion on the Commissioner,
unguided by any criteria, and does not constitute an unreason-
able restriction on the fundamental right to carry on trade under
Art. rg(r)(g) of the Constitution.
Rustom ]amshed Irani v. Harley Kennedy, (1901) I.L.R. 26
Born. 386, inapplicable.
Although tjlere can be no <loubt that proExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.