UPPU SATYANARAYANA Vs. HBYORKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is filed by the President of the Samalkota Panchayat Board, the respondent being the Manager of the Deccan Sugar and Abkari Co., Ltd., at Samalkota. The respondent was prosecuted by the petitioner for failure to take out licenses for (1) the manufacture of arrack with machinery; (2) the manufacture of CO2 gas with machinery; (3) the manufacture of confectionery with machinery. The Cocanada Taluk Board had on 28 August 1930 passed a resolution to the effect that no place within its jurisdiction should be used for any of the three specified manufactures, without the license of the President of the Union Board concerned if the place was within Union limits, the fee for a licence in each case being Rs. 400 while the license was only to endure for a year. The manufacture or refining of sugar was also specified and the fee for this was fixed at Rs. 500. This resolution was notified in the District Gazette on 23 September 1930. A resolution in similar terms, though of course restricted in its scope to the limits of the panchayat's jurisdiction, was passed by the Samalkot village panchayat on 12 November 1930, and this resolution was notified in the District Gazette on 22 November, 1930: (Ex. A-1). By Ex. A-1 the owner or occupier of every place used for the specified manufacture was to apply to the President of the panchayat for a licence for the use of such place for such a purpose within 30 days of its publication.

(2.) The order as to applying for the licence was with reference to Sch. 7, Madras Local Boards Act 14 of 1920 and the three manufactures noted above as (1), (2) and (3) can fall under either Clause (p) or Clause (q) of that schedule. The heading of Sch. 7 is "Purposes for which premises may not be used without a Licence" and Clause (p) runs "using for any industrial purposes any fuel or machinery," while Clause (q) runs: in general doing in the course of and industrial process anything which is likely to be offensive or dangerous to human life or health or property.

(3.) For the purposes of this case, if any clause applies, it must be Clause (q). The respondent did not apply for any licence for the manufactures (1), (2) and (3), but instead a letter (Ex. B), dated 18 December 1930, was sent through the solicitors of his firm, the managing agents of which are Messrs. Parry & Co., Ltd., pointing out that the firm had been paying a license-fee of Rs. 300 for the use of their factory at Samalkota for the manufacture or refining of sugar and for manufactures (1), (2) and (3); that it was well-settled law that licence-fees are not analogous to taxation, but should be proportionate to the expenses incurred for supervision of the industry or purpose which is licensed; that it was obvious that the fee of Rs. 1,700 in all now imposed could have no relation to the cost of supervision by the panchayat, and that the firm therefore did not propose to apply for licences and would resist any attempt on the part of the President of the Union Board to enforce the levy. The prosecution of the respondent then followed. Ex. B had stated that the respondent's company might address the Government in the matter, but I understand that it has not done so. The prosecution was brought under Secs.193, 207 and 212(9), Madras Local Boards Act. Section 193 provides that a panchayat may notify that no place shall be used for any one or more of the purposes specified in Sch. 7 without a licence issued by the President of the panchayat, which licence is to be applied for by the owner or occupier of such place within 30 days of the publication of such notification. Under Section 207 a person shall on conviction be punished as provided in Col. 4, Sch. 8 for contravention of any provision of any of the sections specified in Col. 1 of that schedule. In Col. 1, Sch. 8, is found Section 193, and the subject noted against it is using a place for an offensive or dangerous trade without a license.