Administrative Law

Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji

AIR 1952 SC 16

Facts

Gordhandas Bhanji applied for permission to build a cinema in Bombay.
The Commissioner of Police granted permission after considering advice from the Cinema Advisory Committee.
Later, the Commissioner sent a letter saying: “I am directed by Government” to cancel the permission.
The issue was whether this cancellation was valid.

Whether an authority having statutory discretion can cancel a licence merely on the direction of the Government.

When a statute gives discretion to a particular authority, that authority must exercise it personally.
The authority may take advice, but the final decision must be its own.
Acting under dictation means the real decision is taken by someone else, so the discretion is not validly exercised.

The rules gave the Commissioner of Police the power to grant, suspend or cancel the licence.
The Government itself had no power to cancel the licence once issued.
The Court distinguished between advice and dictation.
When the Commissioner first granted permission, he had taken advice from the Cinema Advisory Committee. That was valid because the final decision still appeared to be his own.
But the cancellation letter was different.
The language of the letter showed that the Commissioner was not applying his own mind. He was simply communicating the Government’s decision.
He acted only as a transmitting agent of the Government.
Since the statutory discretion was vested in him, he could not surrender that discretion to the Government.
The Court also said public orders must be judged by the language of the order itself. Later explanations or affidavits cannot be used to improve or justify the order.

The Supreme Court held that the cancellation was invalid.
The Commissioner had not exercised his own discretion; he acted under Government dictation.
However, the Court did not direct him to grant or continue the licence automatically.
Instead, it directed him to reconsider the matter himself and pass a clear order using his own independent judgment.
Use this case for: an authority must exercise the discretion vested in it; it cannot act as another authority’s agent.
Your PPT also places this case under failure to exercise discretion — acting under dictation.