SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1958 Supreme(AP) 15

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.SATYANARAYANA RAJU
K.Ranganayakulu - Appellant
Versus
Municipal Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipality - Respondent
Decided On : 01-22-58

A statutory authority has a duty to perform its functions within the limits and for the objects intended by the legislature.

Headnote:

MADRAS DISTRICT MUNICIPALITIES ACT - INSTALLATION OF MACHINERY - PERMISSION - APPLICATION - GRANT OF RENEWAL LICENCES - SUBSEQUENT REFUSAL OF RENEWAL - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - WHETHER ISSUABLE.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner applied for permission to install an additional 10 H.P. electric motor in his saw-mill. The Municipality did not respond to the application within the prescribed period of 30 days, and the petitioner continued to operate the saw-mill without a license. The Municipality subsequently granted renewal licenses for two years, but then refused to renew the license for the following year, claiming that the petitioner did not have the original installation permission.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Municipality had a duty to inform the petitioner within a reasonable time whether the permission was granted or not. The court also held that the Municipality's failure to respond to the application for six years and its subsequent grant of renewal licenses for two years estopped it from denying the petitioner's right to operate the saw-mill.

Issues: Whether the Municipality had a duty to inform the petitioner within a reasonable time whether the permission was granted or not.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Municipality had a duty to inform the petitioner within a reasonable time whether the permission was granted or not. The court also held that the Municipality's failure to respond to the application for six years and its subsequent grant of renewal licenses for two years estopped it from denying the petitioner's right to operate the saw-mill.

Final Decision: The court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Municipality to grant the petitioner a renewal license.

P. SATYANARAYANA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order restraining the vijayawada Municipality from proceeding with the action threatened in and by its notice dated 22-2-1956.

( 2 ) THE facts which have given rise to this writ petition are simple and are not in controversy. The petitioner owns a saw-mill at Vijayawada. On an application made by him to the Commissioner of the Vijayawada Municipality on 12-9-1948, under Section 250 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, he was granted permission to install electric driven machinery for the saw-mill, Pursuant to the permission so granted, the petitioner has been running the saw-mill and renewal licences under Section 249 of the District Municipalities Act were being applied for and granted.

( 3 ) ON 20-3-1952, the petitioner applied for permission under Section 250 of the district Municipalities Act for installing an additional 10 H. P. electric motor in the vacant premises contiguous to the premises in which he was already accorded permission to install the electric machinery for the purpose of running the saw-mill. It is common ground that there was no reply from the Municipality either granting the permission or rejecting the application made by the petitioner. Under Section 321, Clause (if) of the District Municipalities Act, a period of thirty days is provided from the date of the application for the Municipality to reject the application, failing which it must be deemed that the permission applied for is granted.

( 4 ) DURING the year 1953-54, it is stated by the petitioner that he did not apply for a renewal licence as he did not work the additional 10 H. P. electric motor. He, however, made an application for a renewal licence for the year 1954-55 which was granted. He again applied for a renewal during the year 1955-56, and it was again granted. A copy of the said renewal licence No. 1207 dated 18-3-1955, is produced before me. While so, on 6-2-1956, the petitioner applied for a renewal for the year 1956-57 as the previous licence was to expire on 31-3-1956. On 2-2-1956, the Municipal commissioner, Vijayawada, gave notice to the petitioner which ran as follows:"you are running a Saw-Mill in 19/273-A with electric motor without obtaining the necessary licence and permission from the council. The said running of the Saw Mill without necessary permission and licence is illegal and against the provisions of the M. D. M. Act. So please take notice! that unless you stop running the Saw-Mill within 4 days from the date of receipt of this notice you will be prosecuted for the offence. Further it is a continuing offence and you are liable for daily prosecution till it is stopped. This is without prejudice to the other remedies open to the Municipality. "

( 5 ) ON 23-2-1956, the Municipal Health Officer gave another notice to the petitioner, which was received by him on 27-2-1956, purporting to be an endorsement on the petitioners application for renewal, dated 6-2-1956, in and by which he intimated the petitioner that the licence applied for was refused on the ground that the petitioner did not obtain the original installation permission as required by Section 250 of the District Municipalities Act. By the said notice, the petitioner was further threatened with prosecution for carrying on business without a licence.

( 6 ) FROM the above narration of the facts, it is clear that though the petitioner made an application for the grant of an installation permission, no reply was given by the Municipality for nearly six years. Subsequently for the years 1954-55 and 1955-56 the petitioner was granted renewal licences which could only be On the assumption that the petitioners original application dated 20-3-1952, must be deemed to have been granted. When again, in February, 1956, he applied for a renewal licence for the year 1956-57, that for the first time the municipal autho






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top