MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ALLEPPEY Vs. BOMBAY COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question is raised for decision in this Criminal Revision case presented on behalf of the Municipal Council of Alleppey. The facts that led up to the filing of the petition are briefly as follows:- The Municipal Council charged the respondent, who is the manager of the Bombay Company Ltd., at Alleppey, with having committed the offence punishable under the bye laws framed under S.326(13) and S.334 of the District Municipalities Act (Travancore). The petitioner's case was that the respondent did not apply for and take out a license is respect of a canteen which he was conducting for the benefit of the workmen employed in the Bombay Company at Alleppey at which such workmen could get refreshment. According to the petitioner, for running such a canteen it is necessary that a license should be obtained from the Municipality the fee for which is Rs. 30. The respondent not having obtained such license has become liable to punishment under the provision of law mentioned above.

(2.) The First Class Bench of Magistrates at Alleppey tried the case and arrived at the conclusion that the accused was not guilty and acquitted him. There were three Magistrates who presided at the trial. Two of them took the view that "there is no provision in the District Municipalities Act, XXIII of 1116, under which the prosecution was launched which entitled the Municipality to require a license to be taken or to charge a fee for such license". The bye laws framed by the Municipal Council which require the taking of such license in the view of the two Magistrates were ultra vires of the powers given to the Municipal Council and, therefore, cannot be enforced in law. Any contravention or breach of the bye laws cannot, therefore, be regarded as an offence in law. The third Magistrate while agreeing with the conclusion reached by his two colleagues stated that the question as to whether the bye laws were ultra vires or not need not be considered in deciding the case, but that in his view S. 326 (13) of the District Municipalities Act empowers the Municipality to make bye laws for the regulation of the places mentioned therein to which the public are admitted for repose or for the consumption of any food or drink does not apply to the labour hands in the employment of the company. Only such labour hands have access to be canteen. It is not a place to which the public are admitted and, therefore, the bye laws framed under S. 326 (13) will not apply to the canteen. For that reason he agreed with the other two Magistrates in their conclusion that the accused was not guilty.

(3.) The facts alleged in the complaint were not disputed and the Bench of Magistrates acted on the assumption that all those facts are admitted. In their view there was only a question of law that arose for determination in the case, viz., whether the accused has contravened the provisions of the District Municipalities Act or the bye laws framed thereunder by the Municipality in the professed exercise of the powers vested in it by the Act.