Curray vs Thampan – clr volume 1 page 042

In Currey (Plaintiff) vs. Thampan (Defendant), the court addressed the issue of whether the defendant, charged with drawing toddy without a licence, was justified by the licence produced, and whether the individual issuing that licence qualified as a “licensed retail dealer” under Ordinance No. 10 of 1844. It was held that a person, even if acting on behalf of another, may be recognized as a licensed retail dealer when authorized under statutory requirements, thus validating the licence in question. The principle reaffirmed is that statutory language relating to licensing cannot be overridden by restrictive interpretations not grounded in the ordinance. The decision turned on the statutory construction of the ordinance, clarifying that an individual named as acting on behalf of another may