Section 92 of Madras Act 10 of 1950, which empowered the Panchayat Board to grant or refuse a license for the construction of factories and installation of machinery, did not confer unrestricted and uncontrolled power, as it was controlled and regulated by considerations of public safety, convenience, and health, and satisfied the requirements of Art. 19(6) of the Constitution.

ORDER :- The petitioner is a resident of Ayyapadi within the jurisdiction of TiruKalachari Panchayat. On 5-8-1954 the petitioner applied to the Panchayat Board for a licence under S. 92, Madras Act 10 of 1950 for constructing a rice and flour mill in R.S. No. 108/17. On 14-11-1954, the District Health Officer informed the Panchayat Board that the site was a suitable one from the public health point of view for the installation of the electric motor for a rice mill and flour hullers.

Representations were made to the President of the Panchayat by the residents of the locality objecting to the grant of the licence asked for by the petitioner. On 23-1-1955, the District Panchachayat Officer, who was consulted by the Panchayat Board pointed out the objections to be considered before the grant of the licence asked for by the petitioner, and he left it to the Panchayat Board to decide the question. On 18-2-1955 the Panchayat by its resolution rejected the application preferred to it by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner applied under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to set aside the resolution of the Panchayat dated 18-2-1955. After the presentation of this application, the petitioner moved the Government to exercise its revisional powers under Madras Act 10 of 1950. It was subsequently reported that the Government declined to interfere, thereby confirming the resolution of the Panchayat rejecting the petitioners request for a licence.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner attacked the validity of the resolution of the Panchayat Board dated 18-2-1955 on two grounds, (1) S. 92 of Madras Act 10 of 1950 was invalid and unenforceable, and; (2) even if S. 92 was valid and conferred a jurisdiction on the Panchayat Board to refuse the licence, exercise of that jurisdiction in this case was male fide.

4. Since the validity of the statutory provision, S. 92 of Madras Act 10 of 1950, was challenged, I directed issue of notice to the Advocate General. The State subsequently obtained permission to be impleaded as a party respondent to these proceedings.

5. The reasons given by the Panchayat Board in its resolution dated 18-2-1955 for the refusal to grant the licence asked for by the petitioner were; (1) as there is a Posts and Telegraph office within 30 feet distance, it will be a disturbance to run the rice mill, (2) as under the National Extension Scheme it is settled to construct a hospital near the site, running of a rice mill will greatly affect the health of the patients; and (3) it is not desirable to run a rice mill, as it is settled to construct the panchayat office about 75 feet distance east, near the rice mill.

6. As the learned Advocate General pointed out, none of these could be said to be an irrelevant consideration, when the Panchayat Board Was called upon to decide whether the licence prescribed by S. 92 of the Act could be granted to the petitioner or not. Section 92 is in Chapter V of Act 10 of 1950 which deals with measures for ensuring public safety, convenience and health. The reasons set out by the Panchayat Board were certainly reasons correlated to public convenience and public health of the locality in which the petitioner wanted to install the factory.

7. It is easier to dispose of the contention of the petitioner that the exercise of the statutory-power vested by S. 92 in the Panchayat Board was mala fide. The petitioner alleged that it was in consultation with the President of the Panchayat Board that the petitioner applied for the licence, and he had the assurance of the President that the licence would be granted. The petitioner further contended that the District Health Officer, who informed the Panchayat Board that in his opinion there could be to objection from the point of view of public health to the installation of a factory as proposed by the petitioner, also informed the petitioner of what the District Health Officer had communicated to the Panchayat Board.

The petition