Birendra Singh Yadav, J. - (1.) The Plaintiff -firm (for short the firm) installed a 30 H.P. electric motor for the purposes of running painja machines in a building situated in Amritsar. It applied, to the Municipal Corporation (for short the Corporation) for granting a licence for carrying on the business which was granted to them on 25th September, 1980. This licence was for the period 1980 -81 expiring on 31st March, 1981. On 8th December, 1980 Health Officer of the Corporation issued a show cause notice Exhibit P. 19 dated 8th December, 1980, under Sec. 343 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act (for short the Act) to the Firm stating therein that the working of painja machines was creating great noise and tremor and was thus a hazard to the health of the neighbours and that by ginning the waste cotton the cotton wool fibres flew in the air and fell in the eatables of neighbors easing harm to their health and therefore, within seven days such steps may be taken so that there may be no hazard to the health of the neighbours failing which recommendation would be made to the higher authorities for revoking the licence. The Firm sent reply Exhibit P. 20 dated 11th December, 1980 to the show cause notice. The reply was not found satisfactory by the Corporation. The Health Officer issued another notice Exhibit P21 dated 31st December, 1980 for showing cause within 15 days as to why the licence should not be revoked and in case no reply was received then it would be considered that they did not want to give any reply to it. Instead of giving reply to this later notice, the Firm filed the instant suit arraying the Corporation and its Commissioner as Defendants for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from revoking or cancelling the licence or otherwise interfering in the working of the machines. It was alleged in the plaint that the factory was situated at a place which was surrounded by other factories. Electric motors were installed practically in all the factories situated on either side of the Firm's factory as well as on the opposite side. The factory of the Firm was not causing any nuisance nor it was cresting vibrations or noise. The factory was neither hazardous to the neighbours nor it was affecting their health. The licence which had been granted after due verification and hearing objections of the persons concerned, could not be revoked and, therefore, the notices issued were ultra vires, without jurisdiction, mala fide, illegal and unforcible in the eyes of law.
(2.) During the pendency of the suit the Firm had applied for the renewal of the licence for the period 1981 -82 but the corporation refused to do so. On 19th October, 1981 the Plaintiffs applied for amendment of the plaint which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereupon the Plaintiffs amended their plaint and prayed for grant of mandatory injunction requiring the Corporation to renew the licence with effect from 1st April, 1981 on the ground that the renewal had been illegally and arbitrarily refused by the Corporation.
(3.) The suit was contested by the Defendants Preliminary objections were taken to the effect that the suit for mandatory and permanent injunction was not maintainable as the Corporation had discretion to grant or revoke the licence according to the circumstances of the case. Mandatory injunction otherwise could not be granted in the absence of the notice under Sec. 396 of the Act. Civil Court had no jurisdiction to interfere in the powers of the Corporation which has power to see whether any business was nuisance to the neighbours and the inhabitants of the locality The suit of the Plaintiffs had become infructuous after 31st March, 1981.;