https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196427 Section 39 of the Calcutta Police Act was upheld as a reasonable restriction on the right to carry on trade because the discretion of the licensing authority was read as confined by the statute's objects of securing good behaviour and preventing drunkenness and disorder, together with the implied requirement that the applicant be in actual control of the premises. The absence of an express hearing requirement or recorded reasons did not make the provision unreasonable in this licensing context, and the challenge based on mala fides also failed because no personal animus, collateral motive, or extraneous favouritism was shown. The dissent would have treated the discretion as uncanalised and procedurally unsafe. en-us Fri, 09 Dec 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:08:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196427 Section 39 of the Calcutta Police Act was upheld as a reasonable restriction on the right to carry on trade because the discretion of the licensing authority was read as confined by the statute's objects of securing good behaviour and preventing drunkenness and disorder, together with the implied requirement that the applicant be in actual control of the premises. The absence of an express hearing requirement or recorded reasons did not make the provision unreasonable in this licensing context, and the challenge based on mala fides also failed because no personal animus, collateral motive, or extraneous favouritism was shown. The dissent would have treated the discretion as uncanalised and procedurally unsafe. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 09 Dec 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196427