http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: KHATKI AHMED MUSHABHAI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: LIMDI MUNICIPALITY

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/11/1978

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. SHINGAL, P.N. SEN, A.P. (J)

CITATION:  1979 AIR  418            1979 SCR  (2) 338  1979 SCC  (1) 248

ACT:      Right  to  a  licence-when  the  bye  laws  permit  the licencing authority to. grant or to refuse licences, whether said to  offend Art, 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India, 1950.

HEADNOTE:      Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court, ^      HELD: 1.  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 licencing  Council-Indeed, is obligatory  on   its  part-to  take  note  of  all  relevant circumstances 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 Court  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 impact on those institutions and residents,  the unreasonableness 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  someone offers a  large donation  to the  Municipality  may  not  be correct. [339D. G, 340B]      3. No  doubt Municipal  discretion should  be exercised rationally,  not   religiously  nor  ritually  and  judicial discretion should  go into anxiously, not impetuously 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  law  against little tyrants  trampling  over  people’s  rights  or  local factions fouling the council s verdict. [340C-D]      In the  instant case, the ground on which the Municipal body, has  refused licence  is not  irrelevant and cannot be described as  unreasonable within  the meaning of Art. 19(6)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

of the constitution. [339C]           Mohd. Faruk  v. M.  P. State,  [1970] 1  SCR  156; inapplicable.

JUDGMENT:      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 Court in Special Civil Application No. 1174 of 1977.      M. V. Gowswami for the Petitioner.      P. M.  Raval, P.  H. Parekh,  C. B. Singh and M. Mudgal for the Respondent. 339      The order or the Court was delivered by      KRISHNA IYER,  J.  The  petitioner’s  counsel,  in  his fighting submission,  argues that  his client’s  fundamental 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 decision hardly helps.  There a byelaw was challenged as violative of Art 19(1)(g).  Here there  is no law whatever which bans the grant of  meat  licences.  Indeed,  there  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 efflux of time had expired. The law vests a discretion to  he reasonably  exercised in  the  content  of citizen’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  all  relevant circumstances and  then decide  whether, in  the  particular spot chosen by the particular applicant" a licence should be granted. Various  factors enter  the verdict  and the  local 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 for a fourth  licence. It  is quite  conceivable that the fourth may be  supernumerary. It  is quite  understandable that the municipality may  think that  it is  not reasonable to grant licence to the same person or one for the father and another for the  son. Moreover,  we cannot  dismiss as irrelevant or obnoxious the consideration the strong feelings of the local people resulting in law and order problems. The proximity to schools, public  institutions  and  also  residents  of  the locality plus  the reaction  or impact on those institutions and residents maybe germane from peace-keeping and welfare oriented view-points.  We agree that local bodies should not succumb   to   religious   susceptibilities   or   fanatical sentiments  in  secular  India  and  refuse  licences  where fundamental rights  have to  be respected.  Even so, in the, totality of circumstances present in the present case, it is not possible  for us  to postulate  that there  has been  an abuse of  discretion or  a perverse  use of  power. In  this view, we decline to interfere. Certainly, the munici

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

(1) [1978] I SCR 156. 340 pal authority  will take  care to  be alert and alive to the fundamental right of citizens and not refuse licences merely scared by mob sentiment or panicked by religious reaction.      In the instant case there is a composite lease-cum cum-lease of  a meat  shop and licence for carrying on trade in mutton.  There is  no  obligation  on  the  part  of  the municipality to grant a lease of its property to any one who asks for  it merely  for the asking. Granting a lease solely because  some   one  offers   a  large   donation   to   the municipality. as  nearly happened  here, may not be correct, which this local body will note. If the refusal of the lease or its  renewal cannot  be faulted, the question of grant of the licence  does not  arise. In this view also we ( find it difficult to accede to the argument of the petitioner.      We agree  that municipal discretion should be exercised rationally,  not  religiously  nor  ritually,  but  we  also realize that  judicial discretion  should go into anxiously, not impetuously  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 vitate  the decision  courts will  guardian  the rule of  law against  little tyrants trampling over people’s rights or local factions fouling the council’s verdict.      The Special Leave Petition is, therefore, dismissed. S.R.                                      Petition dismissed 341