STATE Vs. ISMAILKHAN AHMEDKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal involves a question as to the interpretation of Section 390 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888. The opponent was granted permission under Sub -section (2) of Section 390 to work a flour mill at 155, Bapty Road. On March 7, 1953, the Municipal Commissioner wrote to him a letter exh. B in which he informed the opponent that the permission granted to him to conduct the flour mill had been revoked 'as his mill was a nuisance to the locality.' The Municipal Commissioner also asked the opponent to stop the working of the flour mill forthwith. The opponent ignored this letter and continued to work the mill. On April 2, 1953, a complaint was therefore filed against the opponent under Section 471 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act for working the mill on March 28, 1953, after the permission granted to him had been revoked, in contravention of the provisions of Sub -section (J) of Section 390.

(2.) THE opponent denied that this mill constituted a nuisance. He admitted that he had worked the flour mill on March 28, 1953, i.e. after the permission granted to him for the working of the mill had been revoked, but he contended that the Municipal Commissioner had no authority to revoke the permission granted to him, as he had not infringed any of its conditions, and that consequently he had not committed any offence. This contention was accepted by the learned Magistrate, who accordingly acquitted the opponent. The State of Bombay has appealed against the order of the learned Magistrate acquitting the opponent.

(3.) THAT this was the intention of the Legislature is made clear by the provisions of Section 479. Sub -section (1) of this section provides, Whenever it is provided in this Act that a...written permission may be given for any purpose, such...written permission shall specify the period for which, and the restrictions and conditions subject to which, the same is granted, and shall be given under the signature of the Commissioner or of a municipal officer empowered under Section 68 to grant the same. Sub -section (3) of this section states.any...written permission granted under this Act may at any time be suspended or revoked by the Commissioner, if any of its restrictions or conditions is infringed or evaded by the person to whom the same has been granted, or if the said person is convicted of an infringement of any of the provisions of this Act or of any regulation or by -law made hereunder in any matter to which such...permission relates'. This sub -section, therefore, specifies the circumstances in which the Commissioner can revoke a written permission granted by him. It imposes restrictions on the powers of the Commissioner and he can revoke the permission granted by him only for the reasons mentioned in this sub -section. The learned Additional Assistant Government Pleader has argued that the power to grant a permission under Sub -section (1) of Section 390 includes the power to revoke such permission. That may be so. But it is open to the Legislature to impose restrictions on the exercise of this power. This is what the Legislature has done in Sub -section (3) of Section 479, by specifying the grounds on which the Commissioner may revoke a permission granted by him. The specification of these grounds shows that the Legislature intended that the permission should not be cancelled for any other reason. This sub -section imposes limitations on the Commissioner's powers and it is not open to him to cancel the permission granted by him, except on one or more of the grounds mentioned therein.