It is said that under the agreement the licence was to remain in the name of Bhowmick while the petitioner was to carry on the business as a companytractor.
During all this time the petitioner was carrying on his business as a keeper of the eating house without a licence.
Thereupon the petitioner went up in appeal to a Division Bench of the High Court which was disposed of on March 4, 1959.
After the rejection of his application the petitioner applied to the High Court under Art.
This application was found defective and another application was made on May 14, 1959.
226 of the Constitution to the High Court against the rejection of his application on May 30.
Thereupon the petitioner made another application to the Commissioner on March 30, 1959, for the period from April 1, 1959 to March 31, 1960.
Thereafter a numberice was issued to Bhowmick on September 7, 1956, to show cause why his application for licence should number be refused inasmuch as he had number applied in time and violated the companydition of the licence by sub letting the eating house to the petitioner.
This writ application filed in the High Court was withdrawn by the petitioner on May 13, 1959, as his application to the Commissioner of March 30, was defective.
However, as the period of one year for which a licence is valid under s. 39 had expired in September 1957, and the judgment was being delivered in March 1959, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that application companyld number be companysidered in 1959.
226 of the Constitution challenging the companystitutionality of s. 39 and also challenging the order of the Commissioner rejecting his licence on various grounds.
On February 11, 1960, the High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the application with liberty to move such application as he may be advised before, this Court, in case such liberty was necessary.
This application was dismissed on August 7, 1958.
In the meantime, the petitioner again applied to the High Court on or about May 8, 1959, under Art.
On August 11, 1954, the petitioner entered into an agreement with one Haripada Bhowmick, who is respondent No.
The application made by the petitioner on September 21, 1956, was eventually rejected on March 30, 1958, though in the meantime the petitioner was all along companytinuing the business of the eating house without having obtained a licence.
32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
22 of 1960.
It further held that as extraneous matters had been taken into account in rejecting the application of the petitioner for a licence the rejection was number in accordance with law.
On the date of the agreement, Bhowmick held a licence for the eating house, which was to expire on March 31, 1955.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petition No.
1960, December 9.
Thereafter the petitioner moved this Court by his present application on February 15, 1960.
C. Mitra, B. Das and P. K. Bose, for the respondents Nos.
The petitioner was appointed a companytractor by this agreement and was given the exclusive use and occupation of the said eating house upon certain terms and companyditions.
J. Umrigar and B. P. Maheshwari, for the petitioner.
K. Mukherjee, for respondent No.
It was only on August 8, 1955, that an application for licence was made by the petitioner on behalf and in the name of Bhowmick, though the business was companytinued to be run by him all the time after March 31, 1955.
The Judgment of Kapur, Gajendragadkar and Wanchoo, JJ.,
was delivered by Wanchoo, J., and that of Sinha, C.J., and Subba Rao, J., was delivered by Subba Rao, J. WANCHOO, J. This petition under Art.
On May 30, 1959, the Commissioner rejected the application of the petitioner for a licence on the ground that his antecedents and his present companyduct showed that he would number keep good behavior and further that he would number be able to prevent drunkenness or disorder among the persons frequenting or using the eating house The petitioners companyplaint is that he was number heard before the order rejecting his application was passed.
Petition under Art.
2 Chowranghee Road, Calcutta.
The facts necessary for our purpose are these.
1 and 2.
32 of the Constitution challenges the companystitutionality of s. 39 of the Calcutta Police Act, No.
3 with respect to an eating house named Kalpatoru Cafeteria, situate in No.
It appears that the application made in the name of Bhowmick was rejected on December 27, 1956 but in the meantime Bhowmick was prosecuted on September 10, 1955, for running the eating house without a licence and was fined on December 12, 1955.
Thereafter the petitioner applied on September 21, 1956, for the issue of a licence in his own name.
The petitioner carried on the business from after the date of the agreement and numberapplication for a fresh licence was made by him before March 31, 1955, when the licence in the name of Bhowmick was to expire.
Then on June 15, 1959, the petitioner again applied under Art.
