A. GURUSAMY PILLAI Vs. THE COMMISSIONER, SALEM MUNICIPALITY
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
A. Gurusamy Pillai
The Commissioner, Salem Municipality
Click here to view full judgement.
K.N. Mudaliyar, J. -
(1.) THE facts proved on the basis of the record are that the accused -petitioner sent an application to the Executive Authority of the Salem Municipality on 23 -2 -1968 which is apparent by the remittance of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 5/ -. Ex facie this constitutes the proof of the fact that Exhibit P -3 was sent at the latest by 23 -2 -1968.
(2.) IT is unnecessary for me to consider the endorsement on Exhibit P -3 made by the Sanitary Inspector dated 20 -4 -1968 or about the contents of Exhibit P -2, notice of prosecution, dated 23 -5 -1968, in view of Sub -section (11) of Section 321 of the Madias District Municipalities Act, 1920. The relevant portion of sub -section 11 is extracted below:
...but an applicant for the renewal of a licence or permission or registration shall until communication of orders on his application be entitled to act as if the licence or permission or registration had been renewed; and save as otherwise specially provided in this Act, if orders on an application for licence or permission or for registration are not communicated to the applicant within thirty days after the receipt of the application by the (executive authority), the application shall be deemed to have been allowed for the year or for such less period as is mentioned in the application, and subject to the law, rules, by -laws regulations and all the conditions ordinarily imposed.
It is very clear that the limitation for any communication from the executive authority in the event of a refusal expires on 24th March, 1968 at the latest by reason of the fact of the receipt of Exhibit P -3 on 23rd February, 1968. Therefore, the accused -petitioner is right and proper in acting on the legal fiction that his licence shall be deemed to have been renewed. The prosecution is misconceived in toto. It is the frivolous prosecution as a result of which a citizen is unnecessarily harassed in spite of statutory protection given to him by Section 311 of the Act. The revision petition is allowed. Fine, if paid, is directed to be refunded to the petitioner.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.