V M VADI Vs. VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, who failed in his suit for recovery of damages of Rs. 7500.00 for the loss of his business for the years 1956-57 and 1957-58 on account of alleged wilful neglect or refusal of the Vijayawada Municipality to grant him a licence, has come up to this Court in appeal.

(2.) He is the lessee of Vibrated Cement Products, Vijayawada, of which his own son M. M. Vadi is the proprietor. It appears that he had applied on 26-8-1952, for permission as required under Schedule V(s) and Rule 250 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, for installation of a 10 horse-power motor in Door No. 16/433 for the Vibrated Cement Products plant. According to him, his request was granted under Ex. A-3 and he obtained a working licence under Section 249 and Schedule V(s) for 1954-55. For the succeeding year, he got the working licence renewed. He made his application, Ex. A.7, on 9-2-1956 for the renewal of working licence for 1956-57. The Munivipality did not renew the licence- forthwith but called upon the plaintiff first to produce the installation permit within three days. The plaintiff had no installation permit with him. His contention was that he had sent the same to the Municipality. He, however, made an application Ex. A.8, dated 29-2-1956, submitting along with it plans in duplicate stating that since he was made to understand that the plans and application were misplaced, he was sending the same to enable the Municipality to issue the necessary permit at an early date. The Municipality by its letter, Ex. A10 dated 19-3-1956, informed the plaintiff that final orders will be issued in due course and till then the machinery should not be installed. It also required from the plain-tiff information with regard to the number of workers proposed to be employed probably because this information was essential for purposes of Section 250. The plaintiff failed to supply the required information. By and under Ex. A.11 dated 26-3-1956 the Municipality informed the plaintiff that the licence applied for is refused for the reason that he has not complied with the endorsement dated 23-2-1956 on Ex. A.7. This letter warned the plaintiff not to carry on the trade without any licence, in defaull of which he will be prosecuted under the District Municipalities Act. The plaintiff thereupon issued a notice Ex. A.12 dated 13-4-1956 to the Municipality to the effect that since no orders were passed within 30 days from the date of his application it will be deemed under the express provisions of the Municipalities Act that the necessary licence has been granted, that besides, the very fact that formerly the licence was renewed must postulate that there was an installation permit and that the notice refusing the licence without giving propel reason is illegal and void, and since he has stopped running the factory on account of the notice, the Municipality will be held liable for damages and will nave to make payment to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 100.00 per day. Then for the year 1957-58 he again applied for a running licence on 6-7-1957 under Ex. A.13. He sent another application Ex. A.14 on 13-2-1957 depositing the balance of the fees for the purpose. As no communication was received in response, the plaintiff after giving notice, Ex. A.15, dated 3-5-1957, instituted the suit on 28-6-1957, without even waiting for the Statutory period of the notice. He claimed damages for the loss of trading for the years 1956-57 and 1957-58 and calculating the same under various heads brought his suit for a sum of Rs. 7600.00.

(3.) The defendant resisted this claim on the ground that installation permit was never granted to the plaintiff that the plaintiff himself never definitely stated that permission for the installation was in fact granted and that mere approval by the Council of installation does not give him a right to instal the same. They further contended that the mere sending of an application for the year 1954-55 and payment of the fees for the issue of a licence would not have the automatic effect of grant of a permit; that even the working licence was not granted to him, that the working of the mill prior to 1956-57 was, therefore, illegal, that the defendant was perfectly justified in demanding the production of the installation permit, that since the plaintiff had failed to produce the same in time and even admitted that he did not receive the permit but requested for the issue of a fresh permit for regularising the running of the plant without even furnishing the requisite particulars, the defendant was justified in not issuing a renewal licence for 1956-57; that if the plaintiff was aggrieved by this order, the proper course for him was to go in appeal, and that at any rate, since the act of refusal was committed in exercise of powers under the Act. the plaintiff cannot in law claim damages and that the malice set up is not true.