Obtaining permission for installing machinery under Section 250 of the District Municipalities Act does not exempt the applicant from the obligation to obtain a licence for working the machinery under Section 249.

Odgers, J.

1. This batch of Criminal Revision cases has been referred by the Sessions Judge of Madura. The First Class Bench of Magistrates, Madura Town, convicted the persons concerned under Section 338 of the District Municipalities Act on the ground that they had not taken out licences under Section 249 of the same Act. Permission had been obtained under Section 250 and it was contended before the Bench of Magistrates and before us in revision that if such permission is obtained it is unnecessary to take out a licence under Section 249. Reliance is placed on the ruling of a Bench of this Court in Cr. R.C. No. 503 of 1925 Madura Municipality v. Muthu Balu Chetty (1926) 50 M L J 384 and the learned Sessions Judge has referred the matter to this Court on the ground that the convictions are illegal having regard to that ruling. The Magistrates found as a fact that the working of the rice mills in question is likely to be dangerous to human life or health or property and would therefore fall within the mischief of Schedule V, Clause (q) of the Act. So we must take it that the persons concerned have been found to be doing in the course of an industrial process something which is likely to be dangerous to human life or health or property.

2. The sole question is whether permission obtained under Section 250 absolves the persons concerned from taking out licences under Section 249. This portion of the Act beginning at Section 249 is headed "Industries and Factories" and Section 249 deals with "Industries" and Section 250 with the construction or establishment of factories, workshops or work-places in which it is proposed to employ steam power, water power or other mechanical or electrical power or with the installation of any machinery or manufacturing plant driven by steam, water or other power as aforesaid. The person intended to construct a factory or instal machinery must, before beginning such construction, establishment or installation, apply to the Municipal Council for permission to undertake the work. This section says nothing about the kind of trade or industry to be carried on in the factory or on the premises in which machinery, etc., is to be installed and in my opinion the proviso in 3(a) of the section is not intended to apply to matters of this kind. The permission is to construct or establish a factory or to instal machinery. Section 249 deals with a wholly different state of things. It gives the Council power to notify that all or some of the trades or industries enumerated in Scheduel V may not be carried on within Municipal limits or at a distance of three miles outside without the Chairmans licence. They are all noxious or more or less objectionable trades or occupations. Many of them may be carried on without the establishment of a factory or workshop or the installation of any machinery. In the case referred to (Cr. R.C. No. 503 of 1925 Madura Municipality v. Muthu Balu Chetty (1926) 50 M L J 384) Devadoss and Waller, JJ., recognise the distinction pointed out above in the Act between industries and factories. But they seem to have been impressed by the fact that the Council was to grant the permission under Section 250 whereas the Chairman is to grant the licence under Section 249. I cannot with deference see the anomaly. The Council regulates the construction or user of buildings within the Municipality as factories, the Chairman in the first instance regulates their working if it is desired to carry on one or more of the scheduled occupations or trades therein. There is always an appeal to the Council from the decision of the Chairman. But much or most of the discussion in the judgment turns on the construction of Clause (q) of Schedule V as to which as observed we must accept the finding of fact by the Bench.

3. There are two decisions of Krishnan, J., both reported in 45 M.L.J. The first at p. 555 In re Ramachandra Rao (1923) 45 M L J 555 is referred to by the learned Judges in the case under discussio