Re Bhojwani, Hansroj

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Supreme Court (Belize)
• Judge: Staine, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 21 December 1979
• Docket Number: Action No. 185 of 1978
• Date: 21 December 1979

Supreme Court

Staine, C.J.

Action No. 185 of 1978

Re: Bhojwani, Hansroj

Appearances:

Mr. Manuel Sosa, for the applicant.

Mr. R. Rajasingham, Solicitor General, for the respondent.

Administrative law - Certiorari and Mandamus — Application for order of to remove decision of Trade Licensing Board into court and for order of mandamus directing the Minister to hear appeal from refusal of Board to grant license — Evidence that applicant was not given a fair hearing — Order of mandamus granted.

JUDGMENT:

1 This is an application for an order of certiorari to remove into this Honourable Court, an order made by the Trade Licensing Board for Belize City, refusing the applicant a trade license for carrying on a business at No. 41 Albert Street, Belize City, and for an order of mandamus directing the Minister to hear the appeal of the applicant from the refusal of the said board to grant the said license.

2 The matter was fully argued before this court, but it appears that all the matters of substance appear in the evidence given on affidavit, and it appears necessary only to refer to those matters upon which this decision is based.

3 The applicant, in 1977, applied for a trade license to conduct a tourist orient business in Belize City. This application was refused, and it was from that refusal that the applicant, through his solicitor, at that time, Mr. Edwin L. Flowers, by letter dated 25th August, 1977, appealed to the minister. The grounds of his appeal as set out in his letter were that:

“1. The Board in arriving at their decision was unreasonable in that:

• (a) There are no tourist oriented and handcraft stores in the Belize City.

• (b) The premises were previously used as a dry goods store.

• (c) Mr. Bhojwani bought the said premises and stock in trade with the hope that the license would have been granted.”

4 The grounds of appeal as set out in the letter, were certainly not delicately worded, and should not have presented any great difficulty in hearing. Nevertheless, according to the applicant, he did not hear from the minister, and verbally reminded the Minister and eventually wrote him in November, 1977.

5 The applicant subsequently engaged the firm of Messrs. W.H. Courtenay & Co., Solicitors, to act for him in this matter, and they in turn wrote the Minister.

6 That applicant contended and still contends that he never had a hearing of his appeal by the Minister. Messrs. W.H. Courtenay & Co. having been engaged by the applicant to act for him in the matter of the appeal, they on the 12th July, 1978 called upon the...