November 8, 1949. Wueykwardenk C.J.—
This is a petition for a writ of Maxidata us on the Chairman of the UrbanCouncil, Gampaha. The petitioner states in his petition—
{a) that he applied to the respondent for a licence for 1949 under theButchers Ordinance;
(6) that the respondent refused unlawfully to issue “ a General Licencefor Butchers for 1949 to the petitioner which will enable beefto be sold ” ;
(c) the respondent issued w a protended General Licence for Butchers. . . . confining the licence to pigs and excluding cattle
The petitioner asks for a writ of Mandamus <iirccting the respondent“ to issue to the petitioner a lawful General Licence for Butchers in placeof the pretended licence …. confining sales to pork
This petition does not set out the facts correctly. The petitioner madetwo applications to the respondent one for “ a pork stall ” and the other,later, for “ a beef stall The respondent issued him a licence on thefirst application but refused a licence on the second application.The application for a writ of Mandamus is now made as the petitionerfeels, in fact, aggrieved by the refusal of the respondent to issue aHicence on his application for a beef stall.
228WIJEYBWARDEXB C.J.—Don Oarolia v. Chtirmw, U. C.. Ofampoha
Now, the Butchers Ordinance, No. 0 of 1893, has been amended byOrdinance No. 44 of 1947. Section 7 of the old Ordinance has beenrepealed and in its place we get a new Section 7 and two additionalSections 7a and 7». The procedure according to the new Section 7 isas follows :—
an applicant for a licence has to make his application in writing
to tho lawful authority and
the lawful authority has to publish a notice in the Gazette calling
upon any person residing within his area, who desires to objectto the issue of the licence, to forward to him in duplicate awritten statement of the grounds of the objection within aspecified time ;
on receipt of any such objection tho proper authority shall forward a
copy of the written objection to the applicant.
The subsequent procedure is set out in Sections 7 (3) {6) and 7 (4).
Section 7 (3) (6)The proper authority shall, after giving theapplicant, and each person by whom a statement of objections isfurnished (hereinafter referred to as an “ objector ”), an opportunityof being heard, make order allowing or disallowing the application.The order shall contain a statement of the grounds upon which it ismade and the proper authority shall cause a copy thereof to be servedon the applicant and each objector
Section 7 (4):—“ Any applicant for a licence or any objector to lb*-issue of such licence, if he is aggrieved by tho order of the properauthority, may, within ten days from the date of the service on himof the order, appeal against the order to the Minister in the manner sotout in Section 7b ”.
In this case there is no evidence that anyone has forwarded any writtenobjections to the issue of a licence. But even where there arc no suchobjections, it is under Section 7 (3) (6) that the proper authority wouldmake his order regarding the issue of a licence. If an applicant is aggrievedby the order so mado he must then proceed under Section 7 (4) andappeal against the order to the Minister in the manner set out inSection 7b. That section makes the Minister’s decision filial and conclu-sive and enacts that “ it shall not be subject to question or revision inany Court of Law ”.
I may state that there is no question here as to ' ‘ the lawful authority "or tho'Ministcr exceeding the powers given to them by tho Ordinance.It is merely a case of the petitioner not following the procedure laiddown in the Ordinance.
I refuse the application with costs.
AvvlicolioH refuted