TEJMAL Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE petitioner's case briefly stated is as follows:-That the petitioner has installed a flour mill in the Bada of one Kesrimal shivlal situated in Neem Chowk, Mandsaur, in the year 1951, The said flour mill is being run by the petitioner with the help of an oil engine and under the terms of a licence issued by the local Municipal Committee, that in the year 1953 certain complaints were received by the Municipality from the inhabitants of the locality that the working of the flour mill was causing a nuisance to them and was further causing damage to the property in the neighbourhood. These complaints were examined by the then Municipal Authorities and on 7-3-1953 they held that these complaints were inspired by reason of the hostility of the neighbours towards the petitioner and the allegations made therein were not proved. The licence under which the flour mill was run by the petitioner was initially granted to him by the Municipality for one year and was subsequently renewed from year to year. The period of the licence which was last issued, expired on 313-1955. The petitioner applied for its renewal but the Municipal Council refused the prayer as there were further complaints against the existence of the flour mill in the locality. On 22-8-1955 the Municipal Council Mandsaur, issued a notice to the petitioner intimating to him that the working of the flour mill caused nuisance to the neighbours and caused damage to their property. By the said notice the Council called upon the petitioner to remove the flour mill from the locality and to take it to some other place. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order passed by the Municipal council to the Collector, Mandsaur, but met with no success and the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner has, therefore, by this petition impugned the validity of the action taken by the Municipal Council and the order passed by the Collector in appeal. The grounds on which the validity of the action taken by the Municipal council is challenged, may be stated as follows:--

(3.) IN the affidavit filed by the Chief Executive Officer, Mandsaur Municipality, it is contended that after the decision of the Municipal Committee dated 7-3-1953, further complaints were received from the people living in that locality that harm was being caused to their health and property by the working of the flour mill in their neighbourhood. These complaints were considered by the Municipal Council in its meeting dated 26-7-1955 and it was resolved that the petitioner's licence with respect to the flour mill should not be renewed and that he should be ordered to remove the flour mill from its present place; that the petitioner appealed against this decision of the Municipal Council to the Collector, Mandsaur, but failed to obtain any success.