TMI Blog1959 (12) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein- after called the Company) for all minerals in respect of 3,026 villages for a period of 999 years. On or about January 3, 1951, the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, granted the Company a licence bearing No. H.L. 261-H in form B under s. 6 of the Bihar Mica Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) for mining mica. The licence was renewed from year to year by the relevant authority and the last of the renewals expired on December 31, 1954. The Secretary to the Government of Bihar in the Revenue Department issued a notice dated March 7, 1953, to the Company charging it with violations of ss. 10, 12 and 14 of the Act and calling upon it to show cause within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice why action should not be taken to cancel the licence issued in favour of the Company. By letter dated March 20, 1953, the Company requested the Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, Bihar, to furnish the Company with particulars of the alleged violations of the provisions of the Act. After a reminder was sent, the Company was furnished by the Government with the particulars by its letter dated May 1, 1953. On or about May 17, 1953, the Company sent a written representatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 25(1)(c) of the Act operate as an unreasonable restriction on the said rights, and are therefore void; and (iv) even if the said section did not infringe his fundamental rights, the order of the Government in cancelling the lease without affording him reasonable opportunity to show cause within the meaning of the second proviso to that section infringed his fundamental right. The first two contentions need not detain us; for, the petition may be disposed of on the basis of the last two contentions. The first question, therefore, is whether the provisions of s. 25 of the Act infringe the fundamental rights of the petitioner under sub-cls. (f) and (g) of Art. 19(1) of the Constitution. The said provisions of the Constitution read: Article 19: (1) All citizens shall have the right- (f) to acquire, hold and dispose of property; and (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. Under sub-cls. (f) and (g) of Art. 19(1), every citizen has the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property, and to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. But cls. (5) and (6) of Art. 19 authorize the State to make a la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : When a law deprives a person of possession of his property for an indefinite period of time merely on the subjective determination of an executive officer, such a law can, on no construction of the word reasonable be described as coming within that expression, because it completely negatives the fundamental right by making its enjoyment depend on the mere pleasure and discretion of the executive, the citizen affected having no right to have recourse for establishing the contrary in a civil court. In that case the combined operation of s. 112 of Act XLII of 1950 and the provision s of Regulation 1of 1888 was that the Court of Wards could in its own discretion and on its own subjective determination assume superintendence of the property of a landlord who habitually infringed the rights of his tenants. The Act also did not provide any machinery for determining the question whether a certain landlord was a person who habitually infringed the rights of his tenants. Even the condition precedent for the assumption of superintendence by the Court of Wards, viz., the previous sanction of the Chief Commissioner, was also a matter entirely resting on his discretion. It will b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f an offence under this Act, to search, seize and detain mica removed without a pass etc. Then comes s. 25. As the main argument of the learned Counsel turns upon the provisions of s. 25, it is necessary to read the entire section, which is as follows : Section 25. (1) The State Government may cancel the licence or proprietor s certificate of any licensee or registered proprietor who- (a) allows his licence or proprietors certificate, as the case may be, to be used on behalf of any other person as authority to- buy or have in his possession or sell mica extracted from a mica mine or from a mica dump, or (b) being a person to whom a miner s licence has been granted extracts mica from a mine the particulars of which are not endorsed on his licence, or (c) is guilty of repeated failure to comply with any of the other provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder, or (d) is convicted of an offence under Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code committed in respect of mica: Provided that a licence or a proprietor s certificate shall not be cancelled solely by reason of conviction from which the licensee or the registered proprietor has no right of appeal or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstances, can it be said that the section imposes an unreasonable restriction on the petitioner s fundamental rights ? The statutory conditions subject to which the licence is given are, obviously, reasonable and necessary for regulating the mining industry. The provisions of the Act, as we have already pointed out, were only designed to compel a licensee to keep accounts, produce them before the authorities when required, to prevent him from removing mica from the fields without passes and to impose penalties for contravening the rules. The only vice is said to lie in the power to cancel a licence conferred on the State Government under s. 25 of the Act. The power given to the State Government is only to achieve the object of the Act i.e., to enforce the said provisions, which have been enacted in the interest of the public; and that power, as we have indicated, is exercisable on the basis of objective tests and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. We, cannot, therefore, hold that s. 25(1)(c) of the Act imposes an unreasonable restriction on the petitioner s fundamental rights under Art. 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution. Before leaving this part of the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t if a member of a judicial body is subject to a bias (whether financial or other) in favour of, or against, any party to a dispute, or is in such a position that a bias must be assumed to exist, he ought not take part in the decision or sit on the tribunal ; and that ,any direct pecuniary interest, however small, in the subject-matter of inquiry will disqualify a judge, and any interest, though not pecuniary, will have the same effect, if it is sufficiently substantial to create a reasonable suspicion of bias . The said principles are equally applicable to authorities, though they are not courts of justice or judicial tribunals, who have to act judicially in deciding the rights of others, i.e., authorities who are empowered to discharge quasijudicial functions. In view of the foregoing principles the first question to be considered is whether in the present case the authority functioning for the State Government-it is admitted that the then Revenue Minister of the State made the impugned order-had personal bias against the petitioner. Secondly, we will have to scrutinize the record to ascertain whether reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to show cause or whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m under s. 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court in a judgment dated April 15, 1952, delivered in the petition to transfer the said case to some other Court recorded the admitted fact that there was political rivalry between the Minister and the proprietor. Ultimately, this Court transferred the said criminal case from the State of Bihar to the file of a Magistrate s Court in Delhi on the ground that there was political rivalry between the two persons. These facts are not denied in the counter-affidavit filed by the State. In the said counter-affidavit the following cryptic statement occurs: That the allegations in para. 14(b) of the petition about the alleged political rivalry between Sri Kamakshya Narain Singh and Sri Krishna Ballav Sahay, the then Minister, Revenue, has no bearing on the facts of this case so far as the orders of the Government are concerned and to that extent the allegations are denied. It may, therefore, be taken that the allegations of personal bias of the Revenue Minister against the proprietor is not denied. It is also not disputed that the proceedings against the petitioner were started during the tenure of the said Revenue Minister and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he subject of the memorandum is described as Repeated failure to comply with the provisions of the Bihar Mica Act, 1947. The particulars show that between December 3, 1952, and December 11, 1952, the Inspector of Mica Accounts inspected different godowns of the petitioner and found contravention of the provisions of ss. 10, 12 and 14 of the Act. What is important to notice is that the inspection, though spread over a few days, was really one inspection of different godowns and the particulars disclosed were comparatively trivial defaults in carrying out the provisions of the Act. It may also be noticed that one of the particulars related to an inspection alleged to have been made on March 6, 1952; and, in respect of that inspection, the petitioner was prosecuted and convicted; but the licence was renewed for the next two years in spite of the said conviction. The result of that inspection is, therefore, not germane to the enquiry initiated by the notice dated March 7, 1953. After giving the particulars the memorandum concludes., it is clear that the Company has been guilty of repeated failure to comply with the provisions of the Bihar Mica Act, 1947 and on these allegations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rivial reasons. The enquiry was held by the department headed by the Minister who was obviously biased against the petitioner. Some technical noncompliances of the rules alleged to have been discovered during the inspection of certain godowns were given as an excuse to withdraw the licence no opportunity was given to the petitioner to inspect its accounts and to explain the alleged-defaults with reference to the accounts. After the petitioner gave its reply, a sense of false security was created in the petitioner and after a period of two years the Government issued the notification cancelling the licence. Meanwhile, as a second string to the bow, the state filed a suit against the proprietor for a declaration that the lease was benami and for other reliefs. The hidden hand of the Revenue Minister can be seen in this enquiry. The proceedings were started because of political rivalry between the proprietor and the Revenue Minister. Though heavy stakes were involved, the enquiry was conducted in a manner which did not give any real opportunity to the petitioner to explain its conduct and to disprove the allegations made against it; and the order of cancellation of the licence was mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
