Skip to content


N. Soundarapandian Vs. Vallioor Panchayat Union Council Represented by the Commissioner and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1978)1MLJ23
AppellantN. Soundarapandian
RespondentVallioor Panchayat Union Council Represented by the Commissioner and anr.
Cases ReferredPanchayat Union Council v. Muttom I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- .....for the respondent no. 2 banks on the provision of sub-section (3) of section 159 of the act and a rule framed thereunder for the proposition that a period of two months having elapsed since the date of the said application without respondent no. 1 having communicated his orders thereon, the application stood automatically sanctioned. sub-section (3) reads: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 of the panchayat or the commissioner, the application shall be deemed to have been allowed for the period, if any, for which it would have been ordinarily allowed and.....
Judgment:
ORDER

A.D. Koshal, J.

1. The second respondent made an application dated the 11th of November, 1970 to the Vallioor Panchayat Union (here in after referred to as the Panchayat) praying for the issue of a licence to install machinery for running a new rice mill in Chottikulam. The panchayat granted the application by an order dated the 10th of May, 1971 which is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that according to the rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958 (here in after referred to as the Act) it was incumbent on the panchayat to call for the report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and the Director of Town Planning before granting the application, that neither of these two authorities was approached by the panchayat, and that, therefore, the application was granted in contravention of the said rules. The petitioner prays that the order dated the 10th of May, 1971 and mentioned above be quashed by a writ of certiorari.

2. learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 banks on the provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 159 of the Act and a rule framed thereunder for the proposition that a period of two months having elapsed since the date of the said application without respondent No. 1 having communicated his orders thereon, the application stood automatically sanctioned. Sub-section (3) reads:

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 of the panchayat or the commissioner, 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, bye-laws and regulations and all conditions ordinarily imposed.

The relevant rule framed by the Government states:

In case where any outside authority, such as the District Health Officer or the Inspector of Factories or any other officer has to be consulted before passing orders on an application for any licence or permission or renewal thereof, made under the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958 (Madras Act XXXV of 1958) or any rule, bye-law or regulation made thereunder, orders in respect of such application shall be communicated to the applicant within sixty days after the receipt of the application by the executive authority of the panchayat.

It is common ground between the parties that no orders on the application made by respondent No. 2 were communicated to him within two months after the application was made in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (3) and the Rule above extracted. Therefore the application must be deemed to have been allowed, notwithstanding other Rules which enjoin on respondent No. 1 to refer the matter to the Chief Inspector of Factories and the Director of Town Planning. This conclusion finds support from Panchayat Union Council v. Muttom I.L.R. (1970) Mad. 537, a case directly in point. The impugned order having been made in conformity with the provisions of Sub-section (3) above extracted, no fault can be found therewith.

3. In the result the petition fails and is dismissed but with no order as to costs.


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