S GOVINDA IYER Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL VILLUPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition comes up before us, upon a reference by Srinivasan J, on a question of considerable interest, with regard to the juxtaposition and the relative application of Ss. 249, 250 and 321 (11) of the Madras District Municipalities Act (V of 1920 ). The matter is partly covered by two authorities, to which our attention has been drawn, but it does appear that the particular ground of distinction upon which the learned Judge sought to place the proceedings before a Division Bench, has not been dealt with in either of these authorities.

(2.) A very few facts are essential for an elucidation of the position. We shall be quite brief, since the learned Judge has already referred to the merits at some length, in his judgment of reference. The writ petitioner is the proprietor of a printing press, wherein he had an electrically-operated treadle. On 17-4-1964, he applied under Sec. 250 of the Act for installing an additional treadle with 2 H. P. electric motor. There was correspondence between the Municipal Council on the one hand and the petitioner on the other, which ultimately led to an order of the municipal Council declining permission, dated 20-6-1964. One of the grounds of objection in that order was the letters of consent had not been obtained by the petitioner from adjacent householders for the proposed installation. The petitioner, I. , substance, claimed tow reliefs. Firstly, his contention was that the order or orders of the Municipal Council, taking the orders together in necessary, constituted a proceeding characterised by an error of law apparent on the face of the record. There could be no obligation known to law laid upon a proprietor of that kind desiring to install an additional treadle with 2 H. P. electric motor, to go canvassing for letters of consent from adjacent householders, acquiescing in the proposed installation. On that ground, the order has to be struck down by the issue of the appropriate writ of certiorari. The other contention of was that, because of the deeming effect of S. 321 (11) of the Madras District municipalities Act, since the order of refusal was not communicated to the petitioner within thirty days of the receipt of his application by the executive authority, the application should be deemed to have been allowed. The argument is that, in this view, the installation could be permanently maintained and run by the writ petitioner, including the additional treadle, without any further licence.

(3.) WE shall immediately deal with the second point, since that is the ground upon which the reference has been made by the learned Judge. For this purpose, a glance is necessary at the relevant provisions of the Act. Under Sec. 249 and the sub-clauses of that section, a procedure is provided for, whereunder applications for the renewal of licence, which normally expire at the end of the year, have to be taken out. Under Sec. 230 of the Act, which is important, there is an elaborate procedure for the obtaining of permission or a licence for the installation of a factory, workshop or work-place employing power, and, for the installation in such premises. Before the Municipal Council grants the permission, it has to pay heed to a variety of factors enumerated in sec. 250 (4) sub-clauses (a) and (b ). Such criteria would include the adequacy of provisions for ventilation and light the adequacy of the dimensions of the rooms and doors, the suitability of exists to be used in case of fire, the allied factors relating to public health. At least two types of authority have to be consulted, before the Municipal Council grants the permission, and one is the inspector of such factories, and the other is the Municipal health staff including the Health Officer, Under Sec 321 (11), as we have earlier pointed out, if orders on an application for licence op permission or for registration are not communicated to the applicant within 30 days after the receipt of the application by the executive authority, "the application shall be deemed to have been allowed for the year or for such less period as is mentioned in the application, and subject to the law, rules, bylaws, regulations and all conditions ordinarily imposed".