M. P. THAKKAR, J. ( 1 ) AN Arts graduate of University of Gujarat made an application for grant of a license to use certain premises for the purpose of running a lodging and boarding house or guest house which is a public place of amusement and entertainment as defined by sec. 2 (10) of the Bombay Police Act 1951 The application has been rejected by the Superintendent of Police Ahmedabad as per order-annexure B dated June 4 1976 on the ground that previously his father was carrying on the same business in the same premises and that said license had to he canceled by an order dated October 22 1975 on the ground that prostitutes had been permitted to stay in the premises in question knowingly and that in the opinion of the Superintendent of Police there was likelihood of a repetition of such user if licence was granted to the petitioner. The order in question reads as under:thereafter the petitioner preferred an Appeal to the Secretary Home Department which was dismissed by an order-annexure C dated August 29 1976 After making some unsuccessful representations to the State Government the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in order to challenge the impugned order at annexure B as confirmed by order as per annexure C ( 2 ) THE father of the petitioner-Shyamsinh Thakur - was running a lodging and boarding house (guest house) in a rented premises in Kapasia Bazar locality of Kalupur Ward of Ahmedabad City. On October 22 1975 the license to run the guest house granted to Shyamsinh was cancelled. It appears that Shyamsinh has subsequently died. The petitioner made an application on April 15 1976 and applied for a license in his own name for grant of permission to run lodging and boarding or guest house in the same premises. It is this application made by the petitioner which has been rejected in the aforesaid circumstances. ( 3 ) THE respondents have not filed any affidavit-in-reply nor have respondents produced Rules made under sec. 33 of the Act. Rules in this behalf can be made under sec. 33 (1) (w) (i ). It is this application made by the petitioner which has been rejected in the aforesaid circumstances. ( 3 ) THE respondents have not filed any affidavit-in-reply nor have respondents produced Rules made under sec. 33 of the Act. Rules in this behalf can be made under sec. 33 (1) (w) (i ). Even though time was granted to the learned Assistant Government Pleader to contact the department concerned and to procure the rules the learned Assistant Government Pleader has not been able to produce the same as the same have not been made available to him by the department concerned. Rules concerned however appear to have been incorporated in the license issued by the competent authority. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record one such license issued in favour of his brother Narayansinh on May 29 1976 On the reverse of the license Rules purported to have been framed by the competent authority under sec. 33 (1) (w) (i) of the Act have been incorporated. For the purpose of the present petition only two rules appear to be relevant viz. Rules 2 and 28. These two rules deserve to be quoted: ( 4 ) ON an examination of Rule 2 it appears that the main considera- tion for granting license is to ascertain (1) whether a person who applies for the license is a suitable person; and (2) whether the premises in which the applicant intends to carry on his operations are suitable for the purpose for which the license is prayed for. Suitability of the premises has to be adjudged in the context of convenience of the members of the public and the safety of such members who may happen to visit the place of public entertainment. So far as the second aspect is concerned it is not in dispute that the premises in which the place of public entertainment is sought to be run are suitable for the said purpose. Application for license made by the petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is not a suitable person for being permitted to carry on this business. No doubt under Rule 2 (1) the competent authority has to determine whether or not the applicant is a suitable person. Neither the Act nor the Rules provide any guidelines for adjudging the suitability of a person for the purpose of running a guest house. No doubt under Rule 2 (1) the competent authority has to determine whether or not the applicant is a suitable person. Neither the Act nor the Rules provide any guidelines for adjudging the suitability of a person for the purpose of running a guest house. In absence of any guidelines the competent authority has to act in a reasonable manner by making a rational approach. He must be in a position to show that either on the basis of some material collected by him with regard to character and antecedents of the applicant or with regard to any factors pertaining to the personality of the petitioner he is not a suitable person for the purpose of granting license to run a guest house. The decision rendered by him in this behalf must be capable of being tested on the touch stone of REASON. In the present case the competent authority has taken the view that (1) because the father of the petitioner was guilty of carrying on activity which was covered by Rule 28 in the context of which the license granted to his father was cancelled the petitioner was not a suitable person for granting of such license and (2) that there was likelihood of the petitioner indulging in similar activity in view of the fact that his father had indulged in it. None of these grounds satisfies the acid test. Recourse has been made to non-reason and prejudice instead of the logic and experience. Merely because the father of the petitioner was found guilty of conduct which made the competent authority to cancel his license it cannot be said that his son was not a suitable person for being granted a license. Unsuitability is not a hereditary factor. On no rational principle can one draw the inference that the petitioner is an unsuitable person because his father was an unsuitable person. So also the likelihood of the applicant indulging in similar activities does not at all depend on whether or not his father had indulged in such activities in the past. Such an inference cannot be drawn by recourse to process of ratiocination. And since such a conclusion cannot be drawn by recourse to logic it must be said that the decision of the competent authority is irrational and arbitrary. Such an inference cannot be drawn by recourse to process of ratiocination. And since such a conclusion cannot be drawn by recourse to logic it must be said that the decision of the competent authority is irrational and arbitrary. If the competent authority had reached the conclusion that the petitioner was not a suitable person by reason of some factor personal to him it would have been a different matter; for instance if the petitioner was not mentally sound or was an alcoholic it would have been a different matter. These are factors which are peculiar to an individual and betray his personal traits. If there was any personal factor pertaining either to character or personality of the petitioner or pertaining-to his ability to function as license-holder to run a place of public entertainment from the stand point of suitability it would have been a different matter. The competent authority has not informed himself about rational factors to be taken into account for assessing the suitability or otherwise of the petitioner. He has taken into consideration no factor other than the suitability of his ancestor Which is an altogether irrelevant factor. Therefore the impugned order passed by the Superintendent of Police Ahmedabad Division as per Annexure B as confirmed by the appellate authority as per Annexure D dated December 6 1976 is quashed and set aside. Responddents are directed to decide the application of the petitioner on merits taking into account the relevant and germane considerations pertaining to the character and personality of the petitioner from the relevant stand point of his suitability to function as license-holder to run a place of public entertainment. Respondents are further directed not to take into Consideration the fact that his father was considered to be an unsuitable person and that the license granted to him had to be canceled under Rule 28. The competent authority is further directed not to be influenced by considerations of false prestige (in as much as the petitioners application was rejected) or to act on account of pique as his decision is being quashed. He must decide the matter on sound principles uninhibited by any prejudice for the petitioner or his father. The competent authority will decide the application of the petitioner objectively and dispassionately as soon as possible and in no case later than by September 15 1978 ( 5 ) THE petition is allowed. He must decide the matter on sound principles uninhibited by any prejudice for the petitioner or his father. The competent authority will decide the application of the petitioner objectively and dispassionately as soon as possible and in no case later than by September 15 1978 ( 5 ) THE petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There will be no order regarding costs. Petition allowed. .