K S RAMA AYYAR Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point arising in revision is whether the learned District Judge was right in exercising his jurisdiction by dissolving a temporary injunction issued by the Subordinate Judge restraining the Municipal Council of Madura, the contesting respondent, from filing fresh complaints against the plaintiffs in a suit before him, the present petitioners, under Section 249, District Municipalities Act, on condition of their depositing certain-license fees in Court, pending disposal of the suit.

(2.) The plaintiffs own rice mill in Madura town and sued for a declaration of their right to work the mills without interference by the Municipal Council. Their contention was that their mills do not come within the scope of Section 249 inasmuch as they are not used for one or more of the purposes specified in Schedule 5 to the Act, Clause (E). Whether these mills come within the schedule is, of course, a question of fact.

(3.) It has already been decided by the High Court that the owners of rice mills are obliged to take out licenses under Section 249, (if the working is found to be dangerous to human life and health) : Muthu Balu Chettiar V/s. Chairman, Madura Municipality A.I.R. 1927 Mad. 961 (S.B). I agree with the learned District Judge that a [competent criminal Court is just as much entitled to decide the question of fact as a civil Court. The petitioner's cases, were among those which came before the Full Bench and it had been found as a matter of fact that the rice mills in question were dangerous. On that ground I think that the Judge was right in holding that there was no prima facie case for an injunction.