DIVAKARA PANICKER Vs. RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was found guilty and convicted of the offence under S.284 of the Kerala Municipalities Act (shortly stated the Act). The charge against him was that he was running a saw mill, that a portion of the premises was being used for storing timber and another portion was used for storing fire wood and all these were done without taking the requisite licence. That he was using the premises for these purposes has been well established and is practically admitted by the accused. The case of the accused is that he was not bound to take out separate licence for these purposes. He had taken licence in previous years and the only explanation he could give for not taking licence for the year 1962-63 is that the municipality demanded more than what he had paid in previous years.

(2.) Schedule.3 of the Act enumerates the purposes for which premises may not be used without taking a licence. "Using machinery for any industrial purpose", is one of the purposes. So when machinery is used for running a saw mill it would be an offence. Similarly, "Timber selling or storing" and "firewood selling or storing" are other purposes mentioned in the schedule. It is not the case that the timber necessary for the saw mill alone is stocked and that it is stocked only till it is sawn. So also there is no case that the firewood is not stocked there and both are distinct purposes requiring separate licences.

(3.) The decision in Sanitary Assistant, Municipal Council, Quilon v. Purushothaman ( 1961 KLT 188 ) cannot help the accused. There the accused was a person who was running a soda factory for manufacturing aerated water. He had taken out a licence. He was keeping gas for which no separate licence was taken. There was no case for the prosecution that the accused was storing more than what was necessary for the manufacture of aerated water or that he was storing it for sale or for any other purpose. It is well known that aerated water cannot be manufactured without gas. At the time of inspection there was only one cylinder. It was under such circumstances that the contention of the Municipality was negatived. After dealing with the case law it was held therein: