AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 151 wordsKing, J.—It seems to me that the principle of the ruling reported in (Alampath) Krishnan Vs. Municipal Prosecutor Cannanore Municipality,
and Municipal Council, Cannanore v. Anandam I.L.R.(1927) 51 Mad. 601 : 54 M.L.J. 454 where it is held that hand looms are not ''machinery''
requiring the issue of a license can easily be extended to the present case where there is a printing press worked entirely by hand. Clause (p) of
Schedule VII of the Madras Local Boards Act therefore will not apply. It is argued that Clause (q) applies as the running of this printing press is
''dangerous to human life''. Such a contention seems to me an absurd exaggeration. Clause (q) also does not apply. This petition is therefore
allowed, and as the Local Board had in my opinion no authority to demand any license fee from the petitioner the order requiring him to pay it is
set aside.