- (1.) RESPONDENT filed the instant suit seeking the following relief: "Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from forcing to obtain any other further licence in the same premises of the plaintiffs of the factory namely Bharat Starch Industries by depositing license fee for running Generator/engine and to take any coercive action against the plaintiff and its factory on the basis of illegal, arbitrary, null and void, inoperative, ineffective, without jurisdiction and nonest in the eyes of law notice conveyed vide No.1869 dated 8.10.2001 and No.1989/Li dated 29.10.2001 or in any other manner whatsoever, inter -alia, on the ground that the factory of the plaintiff company has already obtained liecnce against payment of uptodate prescribed fee from the defendants uptill 31.03.2002 under the relevant provision of law"
(2.) IT was pleaded on behalf of the plaintiff -respondent that the Company is having a manufacturing unit at Yamunanagar. The appellant -Municipal Council vide letter dated 24.07.2001 requested the respondent -Company for supply of information regarding number of generator sets installed therein. The said information was duly provided. However, the appellant sent a notice bearing No.1869 dated 08.10.2001 requiring the respondent -Company to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,33,400 as licence fee for the year 2001 -02 within seven days and also to obtain a licence thereof for running the generator sets. Again vide notice dated 29.10.2001, the appellant required the respondent - Company to deposit the aforesaid amount on account of licence fee for generator sets and further threatened to initiate coercive action under the provisions of Land Revenue Act for getting the recovery thereof. Thus, the instant suit was filed alleging that the aforesaid notices issued by the appellants were not in conformity with law and suffer from grave illegalities and infirmities besides being arbitrary, without jurisdiction and competence, inter alia on the following grounds: (i) That factory premises of plaintiff company are governed by the provisions of Factories Act and necessary licence has already been granted by the competent Authority upto 31.12.2001 against payment of requisite fee of Rs.12,000/ -; (ii) That the Haryana State Pollution Control Board has also granted consent to the above factory under the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, respectively, upto 31.03.2003 against payment of usual fee; (iii) That defendants had already granted licence to the plaintiff company for the year commencing from 01.04.2001 upto 31.03.2002 against payment of prescribed fee. Similarly, the defendants had granted licence to the plaintiff company during the past several years without any objection whatsoever; (iv) That the impugned notices are quite vague, indefinite, null and void and without jurisdiction being not covered by any Act or Bye -law; and are not applicable in the instant case, as the factory of the plaintiff company is governed under the provisions of Factories Act; (v) That the plaintiff company has already complied with the provisions of Section 128 of Haryana Municipal Act, by adopting a licence till 31.3.2002, irrespective of the fact whether the said provision was applicable or not and there is no requirement for any other further licence; and (vi) That the impugned notices are also unwarranted and uncalled for, being bad in laws as the same are against the principles of natural justice, as no data or material was supplied to the plaintiff company in order to explain the illegality.
(3.) THUS , it was prayed that the defendant -appellant be restrained from forcing the plaintiff -Company to obtain any other licence in the premises of the factory by depositing licence fee for running of generator sets and also from taking any coercive action against the plaintiff and its factory on the basis of impugned notices. Upon notice, the defendant -appellant appeared and filed written statement raising various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and jurisdiction. On merits, it was submitted that the licences issued by the competent authority under the Factories Act or any other Authority, such as State Pollution Control Board etc. has nothing to do with the demand in question, which was raised under Notification dated 20.07.1998 (Ex.D4) issued by the State of Haryana exercising its powers under Sections 200 and 214 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'). It was further pleaded that the respondent -Company was liable to pay licence fee under Haryana Municipal (Dangerous and Offensive Trades) Bye - laws, 1982. Under Item No.3 of the aforesaid Notification, it is made clear that premises being used as shop or workshop or engine house driven by electric power or oil engine for 50 HP or more, having one or more engines, shall be licensed @ Rs. 60 per HP annually and further, it is provided at Item No.34 that the premises being used as commercial shop or workshop or factories covered by Indian Factories Act, whether specified elsewhere or not and from which nuisance, noise, smoke or unwholesome smell arises or manufacture is carried on contract or otherwise and its turnover is above Rs. 20,000 per annum, then Committee is entitled to claim licence fee @ Rs. 540 per year. Since the premises were being used as a shop or workshop or engine house driven by electric power of oil engine of 50 HP or more having one or more engines, and thus, the notices were issued by them validly and in accordance with the aforesaid provisions of law. All other averments were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. In the replication, the respondent -Company controverted the averments contained in the written statement field by the appellant and reaffirmed the pleas taken in the plaint. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPD 4. Relief.;