SUSHEELA ARAVIND Vs. C A A BOOBACKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE fourth respondent in the writ petition is the appellant herein. THE parties will be referred to according to their rank in the writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioners owned two buildings, situate within Mahe Municipality, and leased out the same to one M/s. Chandramathi and the fourth respondent. THE said two persons entered into a partnership on 1.4.1975, to run a business under the name and style of "Mahe Metals" for manufacturing aluminum foils. Application was made for issue of licence under Sec.355 of the Pondicherry Municipal Decree (Levy and Validation of Taxes, Duties, Cesses and Fees) Act, 1973 (Act 1 of 1973) and for permission under Sec.356 of the said Act. THE permission under Sec.356 of the Act was issued in favour of Thirumathi C.V. Chandramathi, Thavakkara House, Near Konar Vayal-cettancoon-Tellicherry, Door No.685/1, Parakkal, Mahe under licence No.49/76/ LAD/C.5 Pondicherry dated 2.8.1976. THE address mentioned in the licence for location of the industry was Door No.685/1 Prakkal-Mahe. THE nature and purpose of the industry was set out to be manufacture of aluminum circles and utensils. THE details of the machinery authorised to be installed were also set out in the licence. Condition No.7 in the licence read as follows:

(3.) THE licence which was issued previously had expired on 30.3.1985. On 15.7.1986 an order was passed by the competent authority, suspending the licence as it has already expired. On 4.9.1986, the fourth respondent applied for renewal of licence and paid the licence fee in the year 1985-86 and also a fee for the delay in filing the application for renewal. On 11.9.1986, another application for renewal was made for the period 1986-87 along with payment of fine for the delay. THE firm M/s. Mahe Metal filed a suit in O.S. No.7 of 1987 on the file of the Sub Court, Mahe for a declaration that the factory was being run validly by virtue of a statutory presumption under Sec.457( 13) of the Act and for an injunction against the Municipality. THE suit was dismissed for want of statutory notice on 13.3.1987. THE firm made a representation to the Government on 8.4.1987, for issue of renewal licence. On 12.5.1987 an order was passed setting aside the order dated 15.7.1987, suspending the licence which expired on 30.3.1985. THE reason given was that there could not be any suspension of an expired licence. In the application filed by the firm before the Government for renewal of licence, objections were filed by the petitioners on 5.6.1987. THE petitioners also filed W.P. No.6203 of 1987 in this Court for a mandamus directing the Municipal Commissioner, Mahe Municipality to pass orders on the objections dated 5.6.1987 forthwith. This Court passed an order on 24.6.1987 in the writ petition directing the Municipal Commissioner, Mahe Municipality to pass orders on the objection dated 5.6.1987 filed by the petitioners therein on merits on or before 30.11.1987.