MAHADEO PRASAD Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Mahadeo Prasad owns a flour-mill within the limits of the Nowgong Municipality. On 25th January 1965 a notice was issued to him by the Chief Municipal Officer informing him that he was running the flour-mill without obtaining a licence which was contrary to the bye-laws framed by the Municipality and asking him to obtain a licence on payment of Rs. 25. THE applicant then made representations to the Chief Municipal Officer questioning the validity of the bye-laws requiring him to obtain a licence for the running of a flour-mill and prescribing a fee of Rs. 25 for the licence. He was informed by the Chief Municipal Officer that the Municipal Council was acting in accordance with law in asking him to take out a licence on payment of Rs. 25. THE petitioner then preferred an appeal before the Collector, Chhatarpur, which was dismissed. He now seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders of the Municipal Council directing him to take out a licence on payment of Rs. 25 as also the order passed by the Collector in appeal.

(2.) IT was argued by Shri Dabir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) did not authorize the Municipal Council to frame any bye-laws with regard to the running of a flour-mill except under a licence and did not even give power to the Municipal Council to impose any fee for the licence. IT was said that section 127 of the Act only empowered the Municipal Council to impose taxes; it did not give any power to impose a fee in respect of any licence. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that the Nowgong Municipality Flour and Saw Mills (Regulation and Inspection) Bye-laws, 1964, framed by the Municipal Council were ultra vires the Act and invalid.

(3.) AGAIN, even if it be assumed that a place at which a flour mill is run is not covered by clause (q), that does not in any way assist the petitioner. A place at which a flour mill is run and installed clearly falls within the scope of that part of section 283 (1) which follows the various clauses enumerated therein. Under that part, if a place is or is likely by reason of its use to become a nuisance to the neighbourhood, then the Municipal Council has the power to require the owner or the occupier at once to discontinue the use of the place. As is clear from the Explanation to section 283 (1), a place can constitute a nuisance to the neighbourhood if its user creates any mechanical noise. It cannot be gainsaid that in the running of a flour mill "mechanical noise" is inevitable. It is thus plain that under section 283 (1) and (4) the Municipal Council has the power to frame bye-laws for regulating the use of any place for carrying on the business of a flour mill.