Skip to content


M. Lingappa Chetty Vs. President, Ammanarkoil Panchayat and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCommercial
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1958)1MLJ161
AppellantM. Lingappa Chetty
RespondentPresident, Ammanarkoil Panchayat and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....refusing the grant of the licence he applied for was intimated to him.2. the question that the learned counsel for the petitioner urged turns on the legal effect of section 96(3) of madras act x of 1950, the panchayat act. section 96(1) enacts the provision for applications being made for the issue of a licence or permission under the act or the rules or by-laws made under it. there is no controversy that the terms of section 96(1) were complied with by the petitioner when he made his application for the installation of the oil engine on 22nd march, 1954. sub-section (3) of section 96 enacts:save as aforesaid, if orders on an application for any such licence or permission are not communicated to the applicant within thirty days or such longer period as may be prescribed in any class.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.

1. The petitioner desired to instal an oil engine within the area of Ammanarkoil Panchayat, Pudupet Post, Tirupattur Taluk. He made his application for this purpose on 22nd March, 1954. The first formal reply that he got to this application was on 19th January, 1955 when an order, dated 10th January, 1955, refusing the grant of the licence he applied for was intimated to him.

2. The question that the learned Counsel for the petitioner urged turns on the legal effect of Section 96(3) of Madras Act X of 1950, the Panchayat Act. Section 96(1) enacts the provision for applications being made for the issue of a licence or permission under the Act or the rules or by-laws made under it. There is no controversy that the terms of Section 96(1) were complied with by the petitioner when he made his application for the installation of the oil engine on 22nd March, 1954. Sub-section (3) of Section 96 enacts:

Save as aforesaid, if orders on an application for any such licence or permission are not communicated to the applicant within thirty days or such longer period as may be prescribed in any class of cases after the receipt of the application by the executive authority the application shall be deemed to have been allowed for the period if any, for which it would have been ordinarily allowed and subject to the law, rules, by-laws and regulations and of conditions ordinarily imposed.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that under the terms of Section 96(1) read with Section 96(3), a panchayat or local authority had a period of thirty days within which to signify their refusal to grant the application made under Section 96(1) and that if they did not do so, the statute under Section 96(3) clothed the applicant with rights and enabled him to treat himself as being the grantee of the licence. If the learned Counsel were right here, the panchayat would not have power after the expiry of one month to refuse the licence. I have already set out the terms of Section 96(3) and I do not see any answer to the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner. The refusal of the licence was communicated to the petitioner nearly ten months after the application and whatever might be the reason for this delay, it is not relevant on the terms of Section 96(3).

3. The petitioner is entitled to the relief he seeks in the petition and the order of the first respondent, refusing the licence is quashed. There will be no order as to costs in the petition.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //