NEM CHAND Vs. ROHTAK MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the decision of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Rohtak, reversing on appeal the decision of the trial Court, decreeing the Plaintiff's suit.

(2.) THE Plaintiff brought the present suit for a mandatory injunction directing the municipal committee to renew the Plaintiff's license for running his lime -kiln. According to the Plaintiff, he was running this lime -kiln for the last 10 or 12 years under a license granted by the municipal committee. The Defendant committee refused to renew this license for the year 1956 -57 and issued a notice directing him to remove the lime -kiln from its present site by the 31st of March, 1956. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the running of the lime -kiln at the place did not amount to a nuisance and, therefore, the committee was not justified in withholding the license. On appeal the learned Senior Subordinate judge reversed the decision of the trial Court on the ground that the committee was the sole judge as to whether the lime -kiln was offensive or not and the decision of the committee could not he called in question in a suit irrespective of the fact whether that decision was right or wrong. It may be mentioned that in the notice issued, to the Plaintiff no grounds are stated why the license was not being renewed. It may also be mentioned that the step for the non -renewal of the license of the Appellant was taken at the instance of one Sri Niwas, who has appeared as a witness for the municipal committee in these proceedings.

(3.) EVEN if the argument of the learned Counsel for the municipal committee is accepted that the determination of the question is purely subjective so far as the municipal committee is concerned, there is no such determination. The notice is entirely silent. It does not state the grounds for refusal of the renewal of the license. Beyond the notice we have no evidence on what grounds' the Municipal Committee refused to renew the license. In this view of the matter the lower appellate Court has gone wrong in reversing the decision of the trial Court