EMPEROR Vs. MANNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by one Mannu, who is the occupier of a certain plot of ground situated on or near the banks of the Ganges, within the limits of the Municipality of Cawnpore. In the year 1914 a dispute arose between the said Manna and the Municipal Board of Cawnpore, the Board claiming that the land in question belonged to them as nazrul and that Mannu was occupying it without their consent. The attempt then made to eject Mannu from the site by means of proceedings in a Criminal Court came to nothing, because the Court was satisfied that there was a bond fide dispute between the parties on the question of title. After the United Provinces Municipalities Act No. II of 1916) had come into force, certain byelaws were duly promulgated by the Municipal Board of Cawnpore under Part G. (a) (x) of section. 298 of the said Act, and since then Mannu has been twice prosecuted for the offence of using the plot of ground in question for storing wood without a licence granted by the Municipal Board. On the first occasion the prosecution came before this Court in revision and the matter was dealt with by myself in a judgment to be found in Mannu v. Emperor (1919) 17 A.L.J. 976. Since that judgment was pronounced Mannu has formally applied to the proper authorities to grant him a licence for storing wood, up to" the prescribed limit of one thousand maunds, on the site in question, and this licence has been definitely and peremptorily refused him He continued nevertheless to use the site as before for the purpose of storing wood, and the result is that he has been again prosecuted to conviction. The application now before me is against the order of a Magistrate of the first class convicting Mannu and sentencing him to a small fine, In admitting the application I seem to have overlooked, or condoned, the omission of Mannu to apply in the first instance in revision either to the Sessions Judge or to the District Magistrate, but in any se the questions raised by the applicant have been fully argued out before me and I propose to deal with the matter on its merits.

(2.) It has been suggested before me that Mannu has not really been guilty of a broach of any byelaw, because in his application, for a licence he offered to be bound by all conditions laid down in the byelaws themselves, subject to which a licence for storing wood on any place within Municipal limits is ordinarily granted, and no evidence has been offered to show that Mannu has not in fact observed all those conditions. This argument overlooks the wording of Section 299 (1) of the United Provinces Municipalities Act (No. II of 1916), and the fact that the conviction has been recorded for using the site in question for storing wood " in default of a licence granted by the Board," The question of the due observance of the conditions prescribed in the bye-laws could only arise in the case of a man to whom a licence had been granted.

(3.) It is, however, contended that, if the byelaws on the subject be properly considered and given effect to as a whole, it should be held that the Municipal Board is bound to grant a licence to anyone who is prepared to abide by the prescribed conditions, unless it be found that the necessary licence cannot be granted in respect of the particular site in question without prejudice to the health, safety or convenience of the inhabitants of the Municipality. It has in substance been conceded in argument that, if the Municipal Board in rejecting Mannu s application for a licence had placed it on record that in their opinion there were reasons connected with the health, safety or convenience of the inhabitants of the Municipality which rendered it inadvisable that the particular site in question should, be used for the purpose of storing wood, it would not be open to the Criminal Courts, on a prosecution like the _ present, to go into the question of the adequacy of the reasons assigned for refusing a licence. At any rate I am clearly of opinion that this would be so. Even in the strongest case which the applicant has been able to quote on his side, namely, the case "of Haji Ismail Haji Essae v. The Municipal Commissioner of Bombay (1903) I.L.R. 28 Bom. 253, it is clearly laid down that the Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Municipal Commissioner, or interfere in such a matter as the refusal of a licence, unless it is clear beyond doubt that the Municipal Commissioner is using his authority with some indirect motive and for a collateral purpose, not for the purpose for which the Legislature has armed him with the power. The case for the applicant, however, is that, upon the facts now be-fore me, this Court ought to interfere in order to enforce the principle laid down in this ruling. It is represented that the plot of land in question is of no practical use to Mannu unless he is permitted to use it for the purpose of storing wood and that the Municipal Board, in refusing him a licence, is not acting with any purpose of promoting or maintaining the health, safety or convenience of the inhabitants of the Municipality, but simply in order to serve a collateral purpose by compelling Mannu to give up the piece of land about which he has a dispute with the Municipal Board on the question of title. So far as the record before me goes, it does not appear that the Municipal Board of Cawnporo considers that the health, safety or convenience of the inhabitants of the Municipality is in any away concerned in the question of Mannu s using the site in question for the storing of wood. It is possible that some such question may be involved, but the Municipal Board has elected to fight the matter out to this Court upon the pure question of the limits of its authority. It has refused to grant Mannu a licence without giving any reasons for its refusal, and it has not felt itself bound to put forward any reasons for that refusal, either in the court of the trying Magistrate or even in the course of argument before this Court. I feel justified, therefore, in dealing with the point on the materials before me and in accepting, at least for the sake of argument, the applicant s contention that no question of the health, safety or convenience of the inhabitants of the Municipality of Cawnpore is involved in the use which he desires to make of the plot of land in question, and that he has been refused a licence simply because the members of the Municipal Board, having a claim against him that he has no right to occupy this piece of land at all, do not choose to stultify themselves by granting him a licence to use it for any particular purpose. Incidentally, no doubt, this refusal on the part of the Municipal Board may bring considerable pressure upon Mannu to submit without further resistance to the claim of the Municipal Board in the matter of the title to the disputed site, and may thus be said to serve a collateral purpose within the meaning, of that expression as used by the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court, but I have thought it fair to state the point as it might reasonably appear to the members of the Municipal Board when dealing with Mannu s application for a licence.