ASA RAM Vs. DISTRICT BOARD MUZAFFARNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal on a certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court raises a question relating to the interpretation of certain provisions of the U. P. District Boards Act, (U. P. X of 1922) and the U. P. Town Areas Act, (U.P. II of 1914). It is necessary to state the facts on which the question has arisen. Asa Ram appellant runs certain machines with the aid of power in premises which are in a locality which is admittedly within the Jalalabad town area since the year 1953-54. He did not take out a licence for running these machines for 1953-54, as required by bye-law (7) of the Muzaffarnagar Factories Bye-laws, framed by the District Board of Muzaffarnagar, under S. 174 (1) (k) read with S. 106 of the District Boards Act. Consequently, he was prosecuted for contravening the byelaws in question. He admitted that he was running these machines with the aid of power; but his contention was that as the premises where the machines were running were in the town area of Jalalabad, the byelaws framed by the District Board did not apply to him and it was not necessary for him to take out a licence, and his prosecution at the instance of the District Board for contravening the bye-laws was bad. The decision of this point depended upon the construction of S. 93 (3) of the District Boards Act and S. 26 of the Town Areas Act.

(2.) The trial Magistrate was of the opinion, on a construction of the sections abovenamed, that the bye-laws framed by the District Board were not applicable to premises within the Jalalabad town area, and therefore, Asa Ram need not have taken out a licence. He consequently acquitted Asa Ram. There was a revision application by the District Board, which was dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Muzaffarnagar, who agreed with the view of the Magistrate. The District Board then went up in revision to the High Court of Allahabad. The revision was heard by a learned Single Judge, who framed three questions which arose for determination, namely,

(3.) The three points formulated by the High Court arise for decision before us also. The learned Solicitor General appearing for the District Board does not challenge the correctness of the decision on the first point, namely, whether the running of the machines which the appellant is running would come within the relevant words of S. 26(a) of the Town Areas Act. It is enough in this connection to set out the two provisions in the two Acts to see that the decision is correct. Section 174(1)(k) of the District Boards Act, under which the bye-laws were framed is in these terms-