Skip to content


The President of the Union Board Pothanur Vs. Ramasubba Ayyar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in114Ind.Cas.824
AppellantThe President of the Union Board Pothanur
RespondentRamasubba Ayyar and anr.
Excerpt:
madras local boards act (xiv of 1920), section 193, schedule vii - license for business within union board limits--taluk board president, right of, to issue notification under section 193. - .....of the sub-magistrate, paramathi acquitting the respondents in a prosecution launched by the union board against them under section 193 read, with article of the schedule to the madras local boards act. the president of the union board complained to the magistrate that the respondents did not take out licenses for running what is popularly known as coffee hotels within the union area and thereby committed offences punishable under the local boards act. the sub-magistrate held that the union board limits were exclusive of the taluk board limits and the notification by the taluk board requiring persons carrying on certain trades to take out licenses had no force within the union limits. in this judgment in c.c. no. 97 of 1927 the sub magistrate remarks, 'it refer to the licensing of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Devadoss, J.

1. These two applications are for reversing the two orders of the Sub-Magistrate, Paramathi acquitting the respondents in a prosecution launched by the Union Board against them under Section 193 read, with Article of the Schedule to the Madras Local Boards Act. The President of the Union Board complained to the Magistrate that the respondents did not take out licenses for running what is popularly known as coffee hotels within the Union area and thereby committed offences punishable under the Local Boards Act. The Sub-Magistrate held that the Union Board limits were exclusive of the Taluk Board limits and the notification by the Taluk Board requiring persons carrying on certain trades to take out licenses had no force within the Union limits. In this judgment in C.C. No. 97 of 1927 the Sub Magistrate remarks, 'It refer to the licensing of trades in areas in Taluk Board limits; it does not specify whether the Union limits have been included and if the limits of Pothanur Union have been specifically mentioned to include in the area of the Taluk Board'. The Sub-Magistrate evidently did not read Section 193 of the Local Board's Act which is in the following terms:

2. 'The Taluk Board may notify that no place within its limits shall be used for any one or more of the purposes specified in Schedule VII without the license of the President of the Union Board if the place is within Union limits, or of the President of the Taluk Board if it is outside such limits, and except in accordance with the conditions specified there in.' Under this section the authority which is to notify that a license for purposes mentioned in Schedule VII should be obtained, is the Taluk Board and the license has to be obtained, if the business is to be carried on within Union limits from the President of the Union Board and if the business is to be carried outside the Union limits but inside the Taluk Board limits from the President of the Taluk Board, A notification was issued in the Salem District Gazette on the 6th September 1922 under the signature of the President, Taluk Board requiring licenses to be taken under Section 193. The first paragraph of the notification which is practically a reproduction of the paragraph of Section 193 extracted above says, 'whereas the Namakkal Taluk Board have in their Resolution No. 83 dated 4th September 1922 resolved to introduce the licensing provisions under Section 193 of the Madras Local Boards Act, 1920, it is hereby notified for the general information of the public that no place within the limits of the Namakkal Taluk Board in the District of Salem shall be used for the purposes specified hereunder, without the license of the President of the Union Board, if the place is within the limits of a Union Board or, of the President Taluk Board, if it is outside the Union limit and except in accordance with the conditions specified therein.' In the face of this notification it is difficult to see how the Sub-Magistrate came to the conclusion that there was no proper notification that license ought to be obtained from the President of the Union Board for carrying on one of the trades mentioned in Schedule VII within the Union limits. The Sub-Magistrate relied upon some of the statements of the President, Union Board for his conclusion that there was no proper notification. The best course would have been to insist upon the production of the notification itself if the Sub-Magistrate found any difficulty in ascertaining exactly what the terms of the notification were.

3. I, therefore, set aside the orders of acquittal in these two cases and direct him to restore the cases to file and dispose of them according to law.


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