V STANUNATHAN HEALTH INSPECTOR Vs. A A AZIZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise from the decision of the Honorary First Class Bench Magistrate's Court, Quilon in S. F. Nos. 153 and 159 of 1966 on the file of their court acquitting the accused in both the cases. The accused A. A. Aziz and K. Balakrishna Pillai respectively in the two cases, were prosecuted by the Health Inspector of Quilon Municipality under S.284 and 355 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960 Act 14 of 1961 (shortly stated the Act) for storing and selling kerosene within the municipality without licence. The accused pleaded that they having taken the necessary licence from the District Supply Officer, Quilon under the Kerala Kerosene Control Order, 1965 (shortly stated the Order) are not bound to take another licence from the municipality. This contention was upheld by the learned Magistrates and the accused have accordingly been acquitted. The appeals have been preferred by the Health Inspector.

(2.) The question arising for consideration is whether a person holding a licence under the Central Act (the Order has been passed in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (2) read with sub-rules (3) and (9) of R.125 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962) is bound to take another licence under the State Act. Before dealing with the question, it may be pointed out that the licence alleged to have been taken under the Order was not produced in the case and the learned Magistrates have proceeded on the assumption that the accused are, in fact, the holders of such a licence. Any way, the licence contemplated under the Order is a licence authorising the holder to carry on business whether wholesale or retail in kerosene. Wholesale licence will be granted by the Collector, and retail licence by the District Supply Officer. Under S.284 of the Act the licence contemplated is for storing kerosene anywhere within the municipality. It says that:

(3.) A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Lalji Mulji v. State ( ILR 1965 Bom. 899 ) had recently to go into the question whether a person holding a licence under the Petroleum Act (Central Act) could be called upon to take a further licence under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act for the storing of petrol and it was held that even if the State Act made an incidental encroachmen upon the Central Act, it was not rendered invalid thereby. There, the learned Judges would observe: