Panchayat Board, Tondi vs T.N. Muhammad Mohideen

Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.—This is a petition by the Panchayat Board of Tondi for revising the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of

Devakottai setting aside the conviction of the accused u/s 193, Madras Local Boards Act, in C. C. No. 75 of 1942 on the file of the Additional

Sub-Magistrate of Tiruvadanai. The accused applied on 5th December 1941, to the Panchayat Board for a licence in which he stated that he

proposed to instal and run a rice mill with a 24 H. P. engine driven by crude oil at the place mentioned in the application. On 26th December

1941, the Panchayat Board sent a letter to the accused saying that the locality referred to for the installation was not suitable as it would cause

nuisance and inconvenience to the people and that therefore the licence applied for will not be granted. Subsequently on 10th August 1942, the

accused sent a letter to the board stating that it was in continuation of his previous application and that he was sending a detailed plan in duplicate

and prayed that the plan may be approved at an earlier date to enable him to start the business as early as possible, to which a reply was sent on

2nd September 1942, that the plan of the site and the building for the proposed installation had been forwarded to the District Health Officer of

Ramnad for his opinion regarding the fitness for the purpose as per Government orders and that the matter will receive attention and that final

orders will be issued shortly after its decision and that the sum of Rs. 5-4-0 sent by him by moneyorder was kept under deposit; vide Exs. C and

Later, on 13th November 1942, the accused was informed that the erection of the rice mill and the working of the same would be unlawful and

that he was not granted the licence. He was prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 193, 194 and 207, Local Boards Act, the charge

being that he erected the mill building without a permit and that he was running the mill without a licence. He was fined Rs. 50 in respect of the

offence punishable u/s 194, Local Boards Act, and Rupees 5 for the offence punishable u/s 193. On appeal, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of

Devakottah confirmed the conviction for the offence punishable u/s 194 read with Section 207, Local Boards Act, and acquitted him with respect

to the other, i.e., the offence punishable u/s 193, Local Boards Act. It is to revise the order acquitting the accused that this petition has been filed.

The appellate Magistrate has found that u/s 212, Clause (11), Local Boards Act, it must be deemed that the licence had been granted to the

accused and therefore he should not have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 193, Local Boards Act. This is how Section 212, Clause

(11) runs:

The acceptance by a Local Board of the prepayment of the fee for a licence or permission shall not entitle the person making such pre-payment to

the licence or permission as the case may be, but only to refund of the fee in case of refusal of the licence or permission; but an applicant for the

renewal of a licence or permission shall until communication of orders on his application be entitled to act as if the licence or permission had been

renewed; and save as otherwise specially provided in this Act, if orders on an application for licence or permission are not communicated to the

applicant within 30 days after the receipt of the application by the president, the application shall be deemed to have been allowed for the year or

for such less period as is mentioned in the application, and subject to the law, rules, by-laws, regulations and all conditions ordinarily imposed.

In this ease Ex. A is the first application and it is therein stated that the accused proposed to instal and run the rice mill and he requested the board

to grant a licence for the same at an early date. It is stated for the board that this cannot be taken to be an application for a licence to run the mill,

because a mill could be run only after it is installed and it could not be installed without permission and therefore, till the permission is granted and it

is installed, there could be no scope for the application for a licence for running the mill. I do not think I will be justified in accepting this contention,

because from Ex. 2 it is seen that the application of the petitioner which was before the installation was permitted was treated as an application for

installation and running of the mill. As a matter of fact, in Ex. A he prays for licence and states that he proposed to instal and run a mill. For

installation a permission is required and it is only for running the mill that a licence has to be procured. Exhibit A clearly indicates that the accused

even in that application applied for a licence. There can be no scope for the application of Section 212, Clause (11), Local Boards Act, in this

case; as within a month from the date of Ex. A a communication had been sent to the accused, viz., Ex. B stating that the licence could not be

granted. The words used there are ""the licence applied for will not be granted.

It is, however, urged that Ex. C must be considered to be a later application and since it is dated 10th August 1942, and Ex. C-8 the order

stating that he should not erect the mill is dated 13th November 1942, and as more than one month had expired after the date of Ex. C the licence

must be deemed to have been granted. There is no force in this contention that Ex. c should be taken as a fresh application for licence. It is stated

therein that it was only a communication in continuation of his previous application. It is stated by learned Counsel for the accused that the place

referred to in Ex. C relates to a different place and not to the site that was referred to in Ex. A. But then even if Ex. 0 is treated as a fresh

application, within a month a communication had been sent by the board stating that the matter was receiving the attention and that it had been

referred to the Health Officer and final orders would be communicated only after the matter was ascertained. I therefore do not think that it could

be said that this is not an order as contemplated by Section 212, Clause (11). It may not be an order refusing to grant licence or granting a licence,

but it will still be an order in the sense that it communicated to the accused definitely that the question of issuing licence had not been decided and

that the board retained the right to grant or refuse the licence on receipt of further information. In the face of Ex. 2, I do not think the Magistrate

was justified in finding that there has been no communication of any order within a month from the date of Ex. C and in deeming that the licence

was granted. I therefore set aside the order of the Magistrate setting aside the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable u/s 193, Local

Boards Act, and remand the appeal to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Devakottai for disposal in the light of the observations contained herein.