Ex parte mandamus requires full disclosure, proper verification, and prior demand; rice mill licensing discretion was upheld as reasonable.

Full and frank disclosure is required in ex parte mandamus proceedings, and suppression of a prior prosecution and conviction is treated as material and disentitles the applicant to relief. A mandamus petition must also be properly verified by the petitioner or on a legally sufficient basis; verification by a tadbirkar was considered inadequate. The West Bengal Rice Mills Control Order, 1949, including the renewal discretion in paragraph 11, was described as a reasonable regulatory licensing scheme in the public interest and not invalid merely because it conferred wide discretion. Relief also depended on a clear prior demand and refusal, which the record did not show.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether suppression of the petitioner's prior prosecution and conviction disentitled him to relief in an ex parte application for mandamus; (ii) whether a petition for mandamus was maintainable when verified by a tadbirkar rather than by the petitioner; (iii) whether the licensing scheme under the West Bengal Rice Mills Control Order, 1949, including paragraph 11 conferring discretion in renewal matters, was unreasonable or invalid under Article 19 of the Constitution of India; and (iv) whether the application failed for want of a clear prior demand and refusal.

Issue (i): Whether suppression of the petitioner's prior prosecution and conviction disentitled him to relief in an ex parte application for mandamus.

Analysis: Full disclosure of all material facts is required in ex parte proceedings. The petitioner omitted from both the petition and the supplementary affidavit the fact that he had been prosecuted and convicted for contravention of the Control Order. That fact was material and its suppression was deliberate and significant.

Conclusion: The petitioner was disentitled to relief on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether a petition for mandamus was maintainable when verified by a tadbirkar rather than by the petitioner.

Analysis: Applications for mandamus under Article 226 were held to be governed by the principles embodied in Sections 45 and 46 of the Specific Relief Act. On that footing, verification by someone other than the petitioner was treated as insufficient. The affidavit by the tadbirkar did not satisfy the required standard.

Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable on this ground.

Issue (iii): Whether the licensing scheme under the West Bengal Rice Mills Control Order, 1949, including paragraph 11 conferring discretion in renewal matters, was unreasonable or invalid under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: A system of licensing to regulate rice milling was held to be a reasonable regulatory measure in the public interest. The discretion vested in the authority to grant or refuse renewal was not invalid merely because it was wide, so long as arbitrary exercise could be corrected by the Court. Paragraph 11 was therefore not struck down as conferring unconstitutional or unfettered power.

Conclusion: The licensing system and paragraph 11 were upheld as valid.

Issue (iv): Whether the application failed for want of a clear prior demand and refusal.

Analysis: The record did not show a clear demand for issue of a licence followed by refusal before the writ application was filed. The pleadings were vague on this essential foundation for the relief sought.

Conclusion: The application failed on this ground as well.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition could not be granted, and the Rule was discharged with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A petitioner seeking an ex parte writ must make full and frank disclosure of all material facts, and a mandamus application must rest on a legally sufficient foundation including proper verification and a clear prior demand and refusal; a reasonable regulatory licensing scheme is not invalid merely because it vests discretionary power in the authority.

---