KARIM KHAN Vs. COMMR HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is revision petition No. 54, register No. 6 of 1953. The First Court, City Criminal Courts, by judgment dated 31-3-1953, has fined the revision-petitioner, Mohd. Karim Khan, Rs. 15/- for contravention of Section 338 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. Hence this revision petition. I have heard the arguments of the learned advocate, Shri Mohd. Aslam Khan, for the revision-petitioner and Shri Syed Ahmed All Khan for the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. I record my opinion below.

(2.) THE learned advocate for the revision-petitioner argued that his press has been in existence since 1346f. in accordance with the permission granted by the Home Department in consultation with the Municipality and the Police; that the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act is applicable to new presses as has been laid down in a similar case in - '12 Nazaer-e-Osmania 337 (A)' and, therefore, as his press is an old one, the sentence of fine passed against him is incorrect and should be quashed. He argued further that the press is in the compound of the Jame Masjid, Charcaman; that there are no houses surrounding it and it causes no nuisance whatsoever to anybody, either to the denizens of the locality or the public which passes on the road. The learned advocate for the Municipality argued that the liability is under Section 338 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act which prohibits carrying on any trade on a premises, likely to cause a nuisance; that the press does make noise and is a nuisance. It also uses a lot of paper and ink and thus causes a lot of dirtiness and, therefore, now that the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act is enforced, there is the obligation on the part of the revision-petitioner to pay a licence fee to the Corporation for his running the press. He argued that the noise causes annoyance not only to the denizens of the locality but also to the persons who come to pray in the mosque; that the fine could have been upto Rs. 500/- but only Rs. 15/- have been imposed and, therefore, it should not be set aside.

(3.) I have considered the arguments of the learned advocates. As already stated, the learned advocate for the Municipal Corporation stated that the liability of the revision-petitioner rested on Section 338 (1) (d) (ii ). I will quote this provision: 338. (1) Except under and in conformity with the terms and conditions of a license granted by the Commissioner no person shall (d) carry on, or allow to be carried on, in or upon any premises-