# KHA TKI AHMED MUSHABHAI v. LIMDI MUNICIPALITY

- **Citation:** [1979] 2 S.C.R. 338
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1978-11-20
- **Case number:** Special Civil Application No. 1174 of 1977
- **Bench:** V. R. Krishna Iyer, P. N. Shinghal, A. P. Sen
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/kha-tki-ahmed-mushabhai-v-limdi-municipality-7517
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Right to a licence-When the bye laws permit the lic~ncing authority to
grant or to refuse licences, whether said to offend Art. 19'(1)(a) of th~ Constitution of India, 1950.
Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court,
C
HELD : 1. No butcher, baker or circus manager can say that he has the·
D
E
unqua.lified right to get a licence on mere application. It is open to the Ik:encing C-Ouncil-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 Courti 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 irnpact
on those IDstitutions and residents, the unren.sonableness 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·
some·Onc offers a_ large donation to the Municipality may not be ccrrect. [339D,
F·G, 340B]
3. No doubt Municipal discretion should be exercised rationally, not religi·
ou~ly 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 Jaw againat
F
little tyran~ trampling over people's rights or local factions fouling
the
G
council's verdict.
[340C-DJ
Tn the instant cooe, the ground on w·hich the Municipal body has refuseti:
licence is not irrelevant and cannot be described 3.S un1easonablc within the
meaning of Art. 19(6) of the Constitution.
[339C]
Mohd. Faruk v. M. P. State, [1970] 1 SCR 156; inapplicable.

## Text

A
B
338
KHA TKI AHMED MUSHABHAI
v.
LIMDI MUNICIPALITY
November 20, 1978
(V. R. KRISHNA IYER, P. N. SHINGHAL AND A. P. SEN, JJ.]
Right to a licence-When the bye laws permit the lic~ncing authority to
grant or to refuse licences, whether said to offend Art. 19'(1)(a) of th~ Constitution of India, 1950.
Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court,
C
HELD : 1. No butcher, baker or circus manager can say that he has the·
D
E
unqua.lified right to get a licence on mere application. It is open to the Ik:encing C-Ouncil-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 Courti 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 irnpact
on those IDstitutions and residents, the unren.sonableness 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·
some·Onc offers a_ large donation to the Municipality may not be ccrrect. [339D,
F·G, 340B]
3. No doubt Municipal discretion should be exercised rationally, not religi·
ou~ly 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 Jaw againat
F
little tyran~ trampling over people's rights or local factions fouling
the
G
council's verdict.
[340C-DJ
Tn the instant cooe, the ground on w·hich the Municipal body has refuseti:
licence is not irrelevant and cannot be described 3.S un1easonablc within the
meaning of Art. 19(6) of the Constitution.
[339C]
Mohd. Faruk v. M. P. State, [1970] 1 SCR 156; inapplicable.
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 Caurt in Special Civil Application No. 1174 of 1977.
II
M. V. Goswami for the Petitioner.
P. M. Raval, P. H. Parekh, C. B. Singh and M. Mudgal for tke
R~pondent.
..1. ,
..
• 1.
KHATICT AHMED v. L!MDI MUNICIPALITY (Krishna Iyer,!.)
339
The Order of the Court was delivered by
KitlSHNA IYER, J. The petitioner's counsel, in his fighting submission, argues that his client's fundamentaJ 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
A
decision hardly helps.
There a byelaw was challenged as violative of
B
Art. 19 ( 1) (g) .
Here there is no law whatever which bans the grant
of meat licences.
Indeed, thern 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 efllux of time had expired. The
law vests a discretion to be reasonably exercised in the context 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 aJl relevant circumi;tances and then decide whether, in the particular spot chosen by the particular applicallt,, a licence should be granted.
Various factors enter the verdict and the locaJ 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
iame 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 getmanc 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
circun1stances 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-
(1) [197 ] I SCR 1'.G •
c
D
E
F
G
H
340
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 2 S.C.R.
A
pal authority will take care to be alert lllld aliTe to the tundame,ntal righ II;
of citizens and not refuse licence!; merely scared by BJ.ob sentiment or
panicked by relijlious reaction.
In the instant case there is a composite lease-cum-licence-lease of a
111eat shop and licence for carrying on trade in mutton.
There is no
B
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 graut of the licence does not arise. In this view also we
C
find it diftlcult 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 condiD
tions.
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 righfs or local factions fouling the councirs
verdict
The Special Leave Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
S.R.
Petition dismissed.
~-
'