EXCELLENT PUBLICITIES REPRESENTED BY K.V. RAMAMOORTHI Vs. THE MADURAI MUNICIPALITY BY ITS PROSECUTION SANITARY INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXCELLENT Publicities represented by accused 2 and K.V. Ramamurthi accused 2 are the petitioners who question their conviction under S. 183 read with S. 313 of the Madras District Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with the further adjunctive order directing the petitioners to pay the licence fee of Rs. 3,233.05. Briefly the facts are: The allegations against the two petitioners is that they had encroached upon the municipal read margin by fixing up advertisement boards on telegraph and telephone posts and that they had not remitted the licence fee during the period from 1st April 1968 to 31st December 1968. On behalf of the prosecution, the Revenue Officer of the Madurai Municipality and the Licence Inspector were examined as P. Ws. 1 and 2. They speak to the fact that 1899 boards, were exhibited by the petitioners and that at the rate of Rs. 2/ - per menses per board, they owe a total sum of Rs. 3,235.05 along with the postage charges, after giving credit to the sum of Rs. 564/ - which they have paid as licence fees.

(2.) THE plea of the accused is that the sum does from them is Rs. 1, 370 - as licence fee. The mala argument of Mr. Srivatsamani, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that undoubtedly the petitioners have obtained licence for exhibiting the advertisement boards; but there is no proof of any liability as claimed by the Municipality. P.W. 1. the Revenue Officer, has stated that the Municipality, as per the resolution, has prescribed the licence fee at Rs. 2/ - per mensem per board. According to him, the petitioner had 1,899 boards during the period from 1st April 1968 to 31st December 1968. A notice was leased to the petitioner on 7th March 1969 finally demanding payment. On 15th March 1969 the petitioners have received the said notice. But the petitioners have paid a sum of Rs. 564/ - as licence fee, but the balance amount has not been paid. The balance along with the postage charges has come to Rs. 3236.05. The testimony of P.W. 1 has been corroborated by P.W. 2. The plea of the second petitioner is that only a sum of Rs. 1370/ - was due as balance to the municipality. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the non -payment of the licence fee will not amount to any offence and that therefore no prosecution is competent in law and sustainable. The learned counsel took me through the relevant provisions of the Madras District Municipalities Act, Particularly Ss. 182, 183 (3), 313 (e), VII Schedule to the Act and 321 (9) and contended that a prosecution would not lie for non -payment of the licensee fee.

(3.) BOTH the courts below have relied on S. 321 (9), which seas as follows;