LAWS(MAD)-1957-3-22

THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. KARUPPIAH PILLAI

Decided On March 25, 1957
The Public Prosecutor Appellant
V/S
KARUPPIAH PILLAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent by the appellate Court.

(2.) THE respondent applied for a license to install an 1 H.P. Electric Motor and for running it. The application is dated 14th March, 1955. An order was passed by the Panchayat Board on 21st April, 1955, in the following terms:

(3.) IN Panchayat Board, Tondi v. Muhammad Mohideen, (1944) M.W.N. 38, in construing a similar provision contained in Section 212(11) of the Local Boards Act. Kuppuswami Ayyar, J., has held that an order on similar application to the Board stating that the matter was receiving the attention of the authorities and that it had been referred to the Health Officer for enquiries and that final orders would be communicated only after the matter was ascertained was held to be an order within the meaning of Section 212(11); that is to say, an order passed without either granting or refusing license but indicating that the matter was receiving attention and that it had been referred to the Health Officer and final orders would be communicated thereon would be an order within the meaning of that section. No final orders ganting or refusing the grant need be passed. This decision is referred to by Balakrishna Ayyar, J., in Crl. R.C.No. 1106 of 1952, reported in Anthoniswami Chettiar v. The State of Madras represented by the Executive Officer, Panchayat Board, Dharmapuri, (1953) 2 M.L.J. 39. In that case according to the judgment which I sent for and perused, on a similar application by the petitioner in. that case, the following two orders were passed : (1) the petitioner was definitely told that he should stop the building work, and (2) he was informed that the question of renewing his license would be considered only after he had replied to their previous letter and after the matter referred to therein was disposed of. Here also it must be noted that no final orders were passed, but the petitioner was told that he should stop doing his work and that the question of renewing his license would be considered only after his reply to their enquiries were received and considered. These two decisions are, therefore, authority for the position that the orders passed under Section 96(3) on the application preferred by the party need not be final orders. They may be in the nature of an interim order.