Supreme Court
Action No. 185 of 1978
21st December, 1979.
Staine, C.J.

Mr. Manuel Sosa, for the Applicant.
Mr. R. Rajasingham, Solicitor General, for the Respondent.

Judicial Review - Application for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the Trade Licensing Board for Belize City refusing the Applicant a license to operate a tourist orient business, and an order of mandamus to require the Minister of Social Services, Labour and Local Government to hear the appeal of the Applicant against the decision of the Board - Minister taking inordinately long to hear appeal and sent reminders to discharge his statutory duty - Minister subsequently replying that he had heard the appeal and confirmed the decision of the Board - Whether a hearing took place - Evidence confirming Minister never heard the appeal and never addressed his mind to the grounds of appeal - Order of mandamus directed to issue against the Minister.

__________

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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 Minister to discharge his statutory duties under section 19(2) of the Trade License Ordinance 1976.

By a letter dated 19th July, 1978 the Minister's Permanent Secretary conveyed to Messrs. Courtenay, the information that the Minister confirmed the decision of the Trade Licensing Board, and his reasons for so doing. The letter purported to be in reply to that of Messrs. W. H. Courtenay & Co., which had requested the Minister to discharge his statutory duties, but the Permanent Secretary's letter did not say that the Minister had already done so. It was not until a further letter was written to the Minister by Messrs. W. H. Courtenay & Co. that the Minister's Permanent Secretary wrote on the 7th September, 1978 saying that the Minister had heard the Applicant on the 6th March, 1978 at 2:00 p.m., in the Minister's office at Belmopan.

It is, therefore, necessary to look at the documents filed in connection with this application, to see whether the Minister's actions, and those of his staff, are consistent with the allegation that the Applicant was given a hearing.

In the first place, the appeal having been heard on the 6th March, 1978, why was a decision not conveyed until the 19th July, 1978, and then only after enquiry was made by Messrs. W. H. Courtenay & Co? It appears to me wholly insensible so to act, especially when it is recalled the appeal was lodged by Mr. Flowers on the 25th August, 1977.

The Affidavit filed by Mr. W. L. Brown purports to be evidence of the Applicant being heard on the 6th March, 1978. Mr. Brown stations the Applicant, the Minister, Mr. Coleman and himself being present. The document annexed to his Affidavit shows another Bhojwani was present, but Mr. Brown does not mention him. One is left to wonder why, and whether this was the hearing of an appeal in any sense, or as the document was headed "Minutes of a meeting". This would certainly mesh with the opening sentence which read, "The Minister told Mr. Bhojwani that he had invited him to come to Belmopan to speak with him in connection with an appeal Mr. Bhojwani had made". So it was not so much of a hearing. It was to speak about something in connection with the appeal.

It has to be recalled also that the Applicant had appealed on three specific grounds, but these do not appear to have been raised. Again, one is set wondering whether this was the hearing of an appeal. And why the intention of passport, and naturalization paper. Finally, the Minister promised he would be giving his decision in the next two weeks. Surely, this could not be the decision which was conveyed by the letter of 19th July, 1978 - more than four months later.

As for the Affidavit of Mr. E. L. Flowers filed 8th September, 1978 that document is a two edged sword. Mr. Flowers says he was retained by Mr. Bhojwani to conduct his appeal and that Mr. Bhojwani was to pay a further sum to argue the appeal. Mr. Flowers further said Mr. Bhojwani had not paid the further sum and had not instructed him to argue his appeal.

The simple answer for Mr. Bhojwani's failure to act further through Mr. Flowers could be because his appeal was never heard.

On the evidence before me and in the unexplained absence of an Affidavit, I am left with a doubt that the Applicant was given a proper hearing and the order of mandamus will, therefore, issue directing the Minister to hear the Applicant.

----------OO----------