In Re: Nadamuni Nadar

The question in this case is whether a person who has obtained a license for storing timber is not bound to take the permission of the

Municipality for putting up a shed over it.

There was a licence given for selling or storing timber to the petitioner. Apparently in the year 1908, he applied to Mr. Lloyd, the then President

of the Municipality, for a license to erect a shed in the timber-yard. Mr. Lloyd said in Exhibit I, ""the under-signed will not insist on the Pandal

license fees being paid on the sheds used in their depots, as the license granted u/s 325, Act III of 1904, for using a place for the storage of timber

covers, in the opinion of the undersigned, sheds necessary for the protection of timber so stored."" Apparently Mr. Lloyd was under the impression

that if them was license for the storage of timber that would cover the shed erected over it.

It was contended by the Vakil for the petitioner in this Court that the putting up of the shed is only necessary to carrying on the trade of a timber

merchant. We are unable to agree with this contention. It is clear that the Legislature has provided two distinct licenses in respect of the different

matters. Section 325 refers to timber depots and Section 262 to the erection of sheda with inflammable materials. Therefore, in our opinion, the

President was mistaken in thinking that the license u/s 325 covered the permission required u/s 262 : this is in accordance with the view taken by a

Bench of this Court, in Emperor v. Varadachariar 47 Ind. Cas. 672 : 42 M.P 7 : 24 M.L.T.180 : 8 L.W. 581 : 19 Cr.L.J. 948 : (1919) M.W.N.

430.

It was next argued by the Vakil for the appellant that Mr. Lloyd''s letter must be taken at least as a permission for erecting a shed. The obvious

answer to this argument is that suggested by the learned Crown Prosecutor. If permission is to be granted u/s 325 of the City Municipal Act : the

period during which the permission is to be availed of must be mentioned and the boundaries given. The letter of Mr. Lloyd does not purport to fix

the period nor to give the boundaries over which the shed is to be erected. No Municipal President has the power to give authority for all time to

come to erect sheds, and that is the reason why the Legislature has imposed a restriction upon him to specify the period. Therefore, we cannot

regard the letter written by Mr. Lloyd as permission to erect a shed. It follows that the prosecution was well advised and was right.

As regards the sentence, having regard to the letter of Mr. Lloyd, we do not think that the fine of Rs 25 is justified in the circumstances. We

reduce it to Rs. 5.M.C.P.