G G PRINTING PRESS Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed to quash the order of the Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Jagraon whereby the petitioner was directed to close the working of his Printing Press and the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagraon passed in appeal under Section 225 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) THE petitioner which is a Partnership Firm is carrying on business by installing a Printing Press at Jagraon, district Ludhiana. A Licence was granted to the petitioner for running the printing Press in the year 1979 and it was renewed for the years 1980 -81. It appears that some of the residents of the locality including respondent No. 2 made a representation to the Municipal Committee that the Printing Press was located in the residential area and it was causing a nuisance to the public and, therefore, the Printing Press might be ordered to be closed. Thereupon, it appears that some inspection of the premises was made and ultimately the Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee directed the petitioner to close the working of the Printing Press from the premises situated at Hospital Road Jagroan. This order has been confirmed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagroan on an appeal filed under Section 225 of the Act.

(3.) IT is brought to my notice that the period for which the licence was granted, expired long back. The licence was originally granted in 1979 and was renewed for the years 1980 -81 and the licence which was cancelled by the Executive Officer, was stayed by this Court and the petitioner was allowed to continue the business in the said premises by virtue of the orders of the Court. The learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 contended that as the period for which the licence was renewed has expired, no useful purpose will be served by quashing the order under Annexure P5. However, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 stated that the petitioner is continuing his business only by virtue of the order of this Court without any fresh licence or renewal for subsequent period after 1981 but the fact remains that the petitioner has been continuing his business by virtue of the orders of this court. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 brought to my notice that the petitioner is not now doing the business of Printing Press at the premises situated at Hospital Road, Jagroan. This fact is controverted by the learned counsel for petitioner.