KUNHAMMAD KUTTY Vs. REVENUE INSPECTOR DISTRICT BOARD BADAGARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted of an offence punishable under S.207 (1) (a) read with S.171 (i), of the Madras District Boards Act, 1920 for continuing to keep open a private market during the year 1958-1959 without a licence. In view of Kunhammad Kutty v. District Board Revenue Inspector, Badagara, 1959 KLT 1181 , decided by one of us, in which certain observations were made as to the meaning of S.171 (2) of the Act, this petition, which has been preferred against the conviction, was referred to a Bench, by a learned Judge of this Court.

(2.) The petitioner, who has been running a market in the previous year under a licence granted under the Act, made an application for the renewal of the licence for the year in question, on February 16, 1958, which was received at the Office of the District Board on February 19, 1958, but he did not hear in reply to it, until by Ext. P1 dated December 16, 1958, he was called upon to pay a licence fee of Rs. 300/- and also, what is called a belated application fee of Rs. 75/-. The prosecution of the petitioner, was the result of his non compliance with this demand.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner contended, that no order upon the application having been communicated to the petitioner within thirty days of its receipt by the District Board, the application shall be deemed, as provided by S.212 (I 1) of the Act, to have been allowed for the year. It was common ground in this case, that in order to attract S.212 (II), the application for the renewal of the licence must have been made in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The District Board has contended, that the application made, was in contravention of the provisions of sub-s.(2) of S.171 of the Act, which reads as follows:-