KANNIAH Vs. COMMISSIONER AVADI MUNICIPALITY CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is running his business of bakery in the premises situated at No: 682, C.T.H. Road, Pattabiram, Chennai, for the past 20 years. Petitioner has been paying the requisite license fees to the respondent municipality without any default. As the respondent has refused to, accept the license fees and renew the license for the bakery citing a complaint filed under the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on 25.03.2011, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition seeking renewal of license. The case of the petitioner is that his neighbour one Mr. K. Srinivasan was operating a saw mill adjacent to his bakery and he along with other residents of the area petitioned the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board which resulted in the closure of the saw mill being run by the said Srinivasan. Aggrieved over the said act, a complaint came to be lodged against this petitioner stating that he sold spoiled and fungus-infected bread and that he was running the bakery without obtaining proper license from the Municipality. According to the petitioner, the alleged complaint is only a counter blast to his complaint lodged against his neighbour and, therefore, the present impugned notice refusing to renew the license is unsustainable in law.

(2.) Mr. T. Mohan learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in his submissions would consistently contend that the petitioner is running the bakery for the past 20 years without any interruption and without any complaint and all of a sudden, the respondent had taken a stand not to consider his application for renewal of licence stating that a criminal complaint is pending. Learned counsel, relying on Section 107B of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939, submits that the Executive Authority on receiving an application for a licence or for the renewal of a licence may refuse to grant a licence or to renew a licence if he is satisfied that the building, mobile van, vehicle or place is not suitable for the purpose mentioned in the application or does not satisfy the minimum requirements as regards sanitation. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, when the Act clearly contemplates that renewal of licence can be refused only when the applicant does not satisfy the minimum requirement as regards sanitation, there is no power to the authority to refuse the renewal of license on the ground that a criminal case is pending. Mr. T. Mohan would also add that the petitioner is adjudicating the criminal complaint in the manner known to law.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. P. Srinivas learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that there was a notice calling upon the petitioner to rectify the defects found during the inspection by the competent officer and those defects were not rectified. He would also contend that the application submitted by the petitioner was not made in an appropriate form as prescribed under the Act.