Non-justiciable municipal opinion and trade freedom: exclusion of judicial review can be unreasonable, yet the invalid clause may be severed.

A statutory clause that made a municipal corporation's opinion conclusive and non-justiciable was treated as an unreasonable restriction on the freedom to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g), because it excluded judicial review and left regulated trade to uncontrolled administrative discretion. Applying severability principles, the Court accepted that the offending words could be removed without disturbing the rest of the licensing provision, since the remaining text formed a complete and workable scheme. The article therefore states that the invalidity attached only to the clause making the opinion final, while the licensing framework in section 437(1)(b) otherwise remained operative.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the clause making the Corporation's opinion conclusive and not open to challenge imposed an unreasonable restriction on the freedom to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g); (ii) whether that clause was severable from the rest of section 437(1)(b) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, No. XXXIII of 1951.

Issue (i): whether the clause making the Corporation's opinion conclusive and not open to challenge imposed an unreasonable restriction on the freedom to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g).

Analysis: A restriction on trade may include procedural safeguards, but a provision that makes a municipal body's opinion final and non-justiciable can operate arbitrarily even without mala fides. The Court held that such conclusiveness and exclusion of judicial review exposed the regulated trade to the uncontrolled mercy of the Corporation and could not be justified as a reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public.

Conclusion: The clause making the Corporation's opinion conclusive and non-justiciable was unconstitutional as an unreasonable restriction, and the finding was in favour of the respondent on this issue.

Issue (ii): whether that clause was severable from the rest of section 437(1)(b) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, No. XXXIII of 1951.

Analysis: Applying the settled principles of severability, the Court found that the licensing provision could operate independently without the words making the opinion conclusive and immune from challenge. The rest of the section formed a complete and workable code, and the invalid words were not so embedded in the provision as to destroy the legislative scheme.

Conclusion: The offending words were severable and only the parenthetical clause was struck down, while the remainder of section 437(1)(b) was upheld; this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The judgment upheld the licensing scheme in substance but invalidated the clause excluding judicial scrutiny of the Corporation's opinion, and the matter was sent back for reconsideration on the surviving issues.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory provision that makes an administrative opinion conclusive and non-justiciable may be an unreasonable restriction on the freedom to carry on trade, but the invalid part can be severed if the remaining provision is complete and independently workable.

---