M H FARUQI Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision application against the order of the learned Sessions Judge of Allahabad setting aside an order of the trial Court awarding Rs. 100 as compensation to the applicant under Section 250, Criminal P.C.

(2.) Dr. Faruqi, the applicant, obtained a license for his motor from the Municipal Board, Allahabad. The period for which the license was obtained ended on 30th March 1930. After this date Dr. Faruki did not apply for the renewal of his license. On 2 November, 1931, about one year and nine months after the expiry of the old licence, the Municipal Board sent him a notice inviting his attention to the fact that he was using his car without obtaining license and requesting to make an application, for a license without any delay. In. a letter dated 12 November 1931,. Dr. Faruqi acknowledged the receipt of the notice and expressed his willingness to apply for a license. In that letter he inquired from the Municipal Board to let him know the exact amount of the tax which he was required to pay. The Municipal Board sent a reply; dated 12 December 1931 in which Dr. Faruki was asked to fill up a form which was sent along with the letter. On 3 March 1932, he sent letter to the Board enclosing the form, which had been sent to him. In this form, he did not mention the period for which the license was required and hence it was returned to 1 in. along witha letter dated 18 March 1932. On the same date, Dr. Faruqi wrote a letter to the Municipal Board claiming a refund on the ground that he had been paying Rs. 72 as tax though according to rules he should have paid less. The Municipal Board acknowledged the receipt of this demand and informed him on 24 March 1932 that "matter was receiving the attention of the executive officer." On 30 March 1932, Mr. Abbasi, the licencing officer of the Municipal Board filed a complaint in the Court of the joint Magistrate against Dr. Faruqi charging him, with having committed a breach of Rule 2 framed under Section 296, U. P. Municipalities Act, by using his car without a licence. The learned Magistrate who tried the case held that the charge against Dr. Faruqi was not proved and that the case against him was "vaxatious and malicious." He called upon the Municipal Board to show cause why compensation should not be granted to the complainant and eventually awarded Rs. 100 as compensation to the applicant. Against this order, the Municipal Board preferred an appeal to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge of Allahabad who set aside the order of the learned Magistrate. He came to the conclusion that it was proved that the applicant had committed an offence under Rule 3 and the Municipal Board was entitled to prosecute him for breach of that rule and so it could not be said that the case was false and either vexatious or frivolous. The applicant has come to this Court in revision. In my opinion, there is no ground for interfering with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. I agree with the view taken by him that the learned Magistrate was wrong in holding that the applicant had not committed any breach of the rules. Rule 2 runs as follows: Every person who being in possession of a vehicle liable to the tax, becomes resident in the Municipality, or being resident in the Municipality becomes possessed of a vehicle liable to the tax-shall, within 15 days of the date of the beginning of such residence or such possession, apply to the Executive Officer for a license. The application shall state the number and description of vehicles and the period for which a license is required. If the tax is not received along with the application the Executive Officer shall cause a bill to be prepared and presented to the applicant and shall recover the tax in the manner provided by Ch. 6 of the Act.

(3.) Rule 3 says: A person to whom a license has been granted shall, on or before the date on which the period of license expires, make a fresh application for a new license in the manner provided in the rule.