The Coimbatore Municipality vs S.N. Ameer

M.N. Moorthy, J.—S.M. Ameer, who faced a trial for offences under Ss. 250, 338 and 313 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act

in S.T.R. No. 773 of 1977 before the learned judicial Second Class Sub Magistrate-3, Coimbatore, was acquitted. Against the said order of

acquittal, the Commissioner representing the Coimbatore Municipality has preferred this appeal against the acquittal.

The case of the prosecution against the accused was that he installed machinery in the premises bearing door No. 1/80, Chinnaswamy Naidu

Street, Coimbatore, without obtaining the prior sanction of the Municipality. On 10th May, 1977 the respondent herein had applied to the

Municipality under Ex. A3 for permission to install machinery in the said premises. He sent the license-fee for the said application on 16th July,

1977. P.W. 1 is the Building Inspector attached to the Coimbatore Municipality. He inspected the premises of the respondent/accused on 10th

August, 1977. He found that the respondent had already installed machinery of certain horsepower without getting the necessary sanction from the

Muncipality. He sent his inspection report to the office and also a police to the respondent, Ex. A2, on 10th August, 1977 itself, which was duly

acknowledged. The Municipality rejected the original application of the respondent, viz., Ex. A3, on 3rd October, 1977 and asked the petitioner

to remove the installed machinery by Ex. P6, dt. 5th October, 1977, which was served on the respondent on 7th October, 1977.

The case of the respondent in the lower court was that he sent an application for the installation of the machinery on 10th May, 1977 in his

premises. He paid the license fee also. He has given reasons why his license should be granted for the installation of the machinery. He received a

rejection of his application by the Municipality after 60 days. He examined himself as a defence witness in the lower court.

Accepting the defence version that the application was made on 10th May, 1977 and only on 7th October, 1977 it was rejected by the

Municipality, the lower court acquitted the respondent, as according to S. 250 of the Act, the respondent, need wait only for certain days and take

it for granted that if he has not received any rejection of his application within that period, his application is deemed to have been accepted.

The Learned Counsel appearing for the Municipality has contended that even though the application was submitted to the Municipality by the

respondent on 19th May, 1977, the fee was paid only on 16th July, 1977 and that on 10th August, 1977 the inspection was made by P.W. I.

According to him, if the Municipality had moved in the matter, in any way, that is enough to extend the time prescribed for, under S. 250(7) of the

Act. In support of his contention he relied on a Bench decision of this Court in M.A. Velayutham v. The Commissioner, Sankarankoil Municipality,

Sankararikoil. W.A.291 of 1981, dated 17th If arch, 1912. According to the decision, S. 250, Sub-s.(7) of the District Municipalities Act requires

that the concerned authority most pass some orders within 60 days of the filing of the application. In other words, they must take some action

within 60 days on the application and communicate to the applicant about their having taken some action and if such a communication is not

received by the applicant, he can take it that his application has been granted.

In the instant case, the application was made on 10th May, 1977. Till 10th August, 1977 when the premises was inspected, and Ex. A2 notice

was served on the accused, no communication was sent to the accused. Hence, the decision cited above, is not helpful to the prosecution as sixty

days from the date of application had elapsed.

In the result, the order of the court below is correct and I find no reason to interfere with the same. The appeal against the acquittal is dismissed.