KUTTI HASSAN Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted by the Honorary First Class Magistrate, Badagara, under S.115 (1) of the Madras Village Panchayaths Act (X of 1950) for curing fish in the Government Fish Curing Yard, Quilandy, during the year 1955-1956 without obtaining a licence from the Executive Officer, Quilandy Panchayath Board. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two days. He was also ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 6-4-0 as licence fee and Rs. 5/- towards costs of the prosecution.

(2.) On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that licence from the Panchayath Board is unnecessary for curing fish in the Government Fish Curing Yard.

(3.) S.91 of the Act provides that a Panchayath may with the previous approval of the prescribed authority notify that no place within the limits of the village shall be used for any of the purposes specified in the rules made in that behalf, being purposes which in the opinion of the Government are likely to be offensive or dangerous to human health or property, without a licence issued by the executive authority and except in accordance with the conditions specified in such licence. The Government of Madras have by a notification published in the Fort St. George Gazette dated 27th March 1950 notified that with the previous approval of the Regional Inspector concerned a Panchayat may notify, that no place within its limits shall be used for any of the purposes mentioned therein, without a licence under S.91 of the Act. Item (c) in the notification is Storing or otherwise dealing with offal, blood bones, hides, fish or skins. In accordance with S.91 and the notification referred to the Quilandy Panchayath Board published a notification Ext. P-1 in the Malabar District Gazette dated 25th December 1953. Item f(ii) in the Notification is Government Fish Curing Yards and a licence fee of Rs. 5/- is prescribed. The case for the prosecution is that although the petitioner was curing fish in the Government Fish Yard, he was liable to take out a licence under f (ii) of Ext. P-1 on payment of the prescribed fee. This case was upheld by the learned Magistrate and the Petitioner was convicted and sentenced as stated above.