CANEKERATNE J.—TcZaram v, Jinad^asa.
1947Present: Canekeratne J.
TOLARAM, Petitioner, and JLNADASA (Acting Controller of Textiles),
iS. C. 210—Application for a writ of Certiorari on the Controller of Textiles.
Defence Regulations—Textile control—Offence committed by dealer—Power to cancellicence—Regulation 62.
Where a textile dealer has been guilty of a contra.vention of the TextilesControl regulations it is not necessary that ho should be prosecuted before anorder can be made under regulation 62 cancelling his 1 icence.
-A. PPLICATION for a writ of certiorari on the Contrpller of Textiles.
S. Nadesan, for the petitioner.
H. Deheragoda, C.C., for the respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
December 5, 1947. Caukkksatse J.—
The Controller has power to cancel a textile licence under section 58for contravention of any regulation or under section 60 after convictionby a Court of a contravention of the regulations or under 62 where hehas reasonable grounds to believe that a dealer is unfit to hold a licence.
The petitioner was informed about April 2, 1947, by a letter bearingthe words “ Non-compliance with the Textiles Control Regulations ”that it has been reported to the controller that he had done four specific
Ponnudurai v. Anakoddai Police.
acts, numbered, a, b, c, and d. He was called upon to submit a writtenexplanation and show cause on or before April 12, 1947, why he shouldnot make a piunitive order under regulation 58 or otherwise deal with thepetitioner under the Textile Control Regulations. The petitioner sent anexplanation on April 12. Any reasonable person reading the explanationcould come to the conclusion that the petitioner charged a higher pricethan the maximum retail price, that he failed to obtain the requirednumber of coupons and failed to issue a receipt to the purchaser ; theserelate to the acts specified as a, b, and c. He admitted that the pricemarked portion was rolled inside, but naively stated that it was so donefor the sake of convenience. Finally he begged “ to be excused for thisminor offence I have committed ” and ended the letter by thankingthe controller “for his sympathetic consideration”. By letter datedApril 22 the Controller revoked his licence under regulation 62.
The Controller has given the petitioner a full opportunity to state hiscase on the matters referred to in the letter of April 4. It was arguedthat the petitioner ought to have been prosecuted for an offence underthe regulations before an order under regulation 62 was made by theController. There is nothing in the regulations to lead one to thisconclusion. I was not referred to, nor have I been able- to find, anyauthority which shows that the specific regulation under which theController ultimately acted should have been expressly referred to inhis letter. The statute under which the Controller acted does notprescribe the procedure to be adopted by him before making an orderlander regulation 62. As he is left without express guidance he must acthonestly and by honest means. Th*'™ is nothing to show that he failedto observe this rule. Nor is there anything to suggest that he did notperform his duties conscientiously and with a proper feeling of respon-sibility as his acts might affect the property and rights of an individual.Perhaps one might be inclined to say that it would have been betterspecifically to have drawn the attention of the dealer to regulation 62before the making of the order.
The application for a mandate is dismissed—the petitioner will payhalf the costs incurred by the respondent.