Patna High Court
Chandi Prasad vs Rameshwar Prasad Agarwal And Anr. on 8 July, 1966
Equivalent citations: AIR1967PAT41, AIR 1967 PATNA 41, ILR 46 PAT 357 1966 BLJR 869, 1966 BLJR 869
JUDGMENT Dutta, J.
1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India arises out of an order passed by the authorities of the Arrah Municipality, holding that the petitioner is liable to take three separate licences and pay three separate licence fees under Section 259 (1) of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act for carrying on business of crushing oil seeds, crushing wheat and polishing rice at a place situate in Mohalla Chowdhriana of Arrah Town.
2. The case of the petitioners is that he is carrying on the business of crushing oil seeds and wheat only in the same premises with the help of a motor, namely, an electric motor of ten horse power and he is liable to take out only one licence and pay only one licence fee for carrying on such businesses.
3. The allegation of the petitioner that he is carrying on businesses of crushing oil seeds and wheat only was controverted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Municipality, in Para. 4 of which it was alleged that the petitioner has been running three businesses and not two as claimed by him. In his rejoinder to this counter affidavit on behalf of the Municipality, the petitioner again alleged that he is running only two businesses, namely, crushing of all seeds and wheat and not the business of polishing rice. Neither of the parties made any submission before us at the time of hearing of the present writ petition in connection with the dispute as to whether only two businesses were being carried on as alleged by the petitioner or three businesses as alleged by the Municipality. It is evident that this disputed question of fact cannot be entered into in the present writ petition and, as such, it is not necessary to consider this matter.
4. The only point that was urged at the time of hearing and arises for determination is whether only one licence has to be taken for carrying on in the same premises more than one of the trades or businesses specified in Section 259 (1) of the Municipal Act or whether separate licences with the corresponding liability to pay separate fees have to be taken for carrying on each of such trades or businesses. The contention on behalf of the petitioner was that in view of the provisions of Section 258 (1) only one licence has to be taken for carrying on at one place any number of trades or businesses out of those specified in this sub-section and it is not necessary to take separate licences for the different trades or businesses specified therein. The relevant part of Section 259 (1) runs as follows:--
"Within such local limits as may be fixed by the Commissioners at a meeting, no place shall be used without a licence granted by the Commissioners after such local inquiry as they may deem necessary, which shall be renewable annually, for any of the following trades or businesses, namely."
This is followed by specification of a number of trades and businesses under Clauses (i) to (xiii) and the next item which falls under Clause (xiv) is as follows:--
"Any manufacture, process or business from which offensive or unwholesome smells may arise or which has been declared by the State Government by notification to be dangerous or offensive."
It is admitted that a notification has been issued by the State Government on the 15th June 1955, in execution of the powers conferred under the aforesaid Clause (xiv), whereby a number of manufactures processes and businesses have been declared to be dangerous and offensive and the list of such manufactures, etc., as given in this notification includes rice mills, flour mills and oil mills. There is thus no dispute about the liability of the petitioner to take licence for carrying on the aforesaid businesses. The contention of the petitioner, however, is that under the law as laid down in Section 259 (1), a person has to take out only one licence irrespective of the number and nature of such trades or businesses which are carried on by him at any particular place.
This contention is based on the submission that a licence has to be granted with respect to a particular place, and, as such, the question as to the number of trades or businesses carried on at such place is quite immaterial and on the further submission that the word "any" in the expression "for any of the following trades and businesses" as used in Sub-section (1) of Section 259, means and implies "all" such trades and businesses. This contention, however, does not appear to be at all tenable on examination of the provisions of the aforesaid sub-section. The word "any" has not been specifically defined in the Bihar and Orissa General Clauses Act 1917, but Section 15 of this Act provides that in all Bihar and Orissa Acts and Bihar Acts, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, words in the singular include the Plural and vice versa. In view of this provision even if the word "all" be held to be the plural of the word "any", it is apparent that whether the word "any" as used in a particular section implies "all" has got to be determined by reference to the context in which it has been used.
It is, no doubt, true that the word "any" may, in certain context, imply "all" For example, when the law provides to the effect that any of a particular class of persons, such as the Share Holders of a Company or Directors thereof, may be prosecuted for a particular offence which may be committed in connection with the conduct of the business of the company, the use of the word "any" in such a context would imply that all such persons, that is, all the Share Holders or Directors, as the case may be, may be prosecuted for the offence in question. That, however, does not imply that the word "any" must be interpreted as meaning "all" in each and every case irrespective of the context in which the same has been used. It is, therefore, necessary to consider the aforesaid sub-section as a whole for determining whether the word "any" has been used therein to mean that all the businesses and trades specified in the sub-section can be covered by one and the same licence, when such trades or businesses are carried on at the same place or whether a separate licence has to be taken for each separate business.
As already pointed out, Sub-section (1) of Section 259, as it stands, lays down that no place can be used without a licence for any of the trades and businesses specified therein and this is followed by a list of such trades and businesses and this clearly implies that if a person intends to carry on any of the businesses specified in the list at any particular place, within of course the area as referred to in the sub-section, he has to take out a licence for the same. The contention that it is the place that is licenced irrespective of the business to be carried on and, as such, any number of such businesses can be carried on there, after the place is licenced under Section 259 (1) is evidently quite untenable as the purpose for which the licence is granted is really the main and primary object of granting such licence and the importance of the place arises out of the fact that such a trade or business as specified in the sub-clause has got to be carried on at particular place.
The object of the section is evidently to ensure that none of the trades and businesses specified in the sub-section is carried on within a municipal area until the Commissioners have an opportunity of determining whether the carrying on of such trade or business at the place concerned would be proper on consideration of the health and safety, etc., of the people of the locality and such other factors as may be relevant, including the necessity of ensuring proper cleanliness and sanction. It is apparent that in deciding the question as to whether any such licence is to be granted or not, the Commissioners shall have to consider the matter by reference to the nature of the particular trade or business sought to be carried on at the place concerned and although there may not be any objection to the granting of such licence with respect to a particular trade or business in a particular place, the position may be quite otherwise in connection with another trade or business.
The trades and businesses specified in Clauses (i) to (xiii) of Sub-section (1) and in the notification issued under Clause (xiv) are of diverse nature and different considerations are bound to arise in determining the propriety of granting licence with respect to the aforesaid different classes of businesses or trades. In these circumstances, it would be unreasonable to hold that the legislature intended that so many diverse classes of trades and businesses, most; of which have nothing in common, could all be carried on at one place and are to be covered by one licence. Again Sub-section (3) of Section 259 provides that the Commissioners may, subject to a maximum to be fixed by the State Government, levy a fee in respect of any such licence and the renewal thereof, and may impose such conditions upon the grant of any such licence as they may think necessary. There is nothing in this sub-section restricting, the power of the Commissioners to prescribe separate fees or scales of fees for the different classes of businesses or trades. It is also apparent that the conditions that may be imposed under this sub-section are bound to vary according to the nature of the trade or business. It is evident that in order to secure these objects separate licences have to be issued in connection with each such trade or business. It would appear on consideration of all these aspects that the contention that only one licence is required to be taken out for carrying on any number of trades and businesses out of the list specified in Sub-section 259 (1) is quite untenable. It further follows from the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 259 that the Municipality is entitled to realise a separate fee in connection with each such licence.
5. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner could not cite any ruling in support of his contention that a single licence can be taken for carrying on any number of the aforesaid trades and businesses. The cases of Emperor v. Mayandi Konan, (1907) ILR 30 Mad 220 and Gobinda Chandra Mullich v. Chairman of the Hooghly and Chinsura Municipality, AIR 1922 Cal 99, were cited by him. It appears, however, that neither of these cases has any bearing in the present case as the points under consideration in these cases were quite different. In the Madras case, the respondents had been proceeded against under Section 188 (n), Madras District Municipalities Act, for keeping more than ten heads of cattle for trade without obtaining any licence. It was held that the user of the place where the cattle was kept was of a merely temporary character and, in view of this, the Court did not consider it necessary to interfere with the order of acquittal.
In the other case, that is, the Calcutta case, the question for consideration was whether the business or trade concerned should per se be offensive for the purpose of application of Section 261 of the Bengal Municipal Act or if the section would also cover the case of a place of business from which offensive and unwholesome smells may arise. The Court distinguished the English law on the subject from the law laid down in Section 261 of the Bengal Municipal Act and held that this section covers also a place of business from which offensive and unwholesome smells may arise. It is thus apparent that the aforesaid two cases relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioner are of no help in determining the point under consideration.
6. On a consideration of all the aspects, referred to above, the contention of the petitioner that only one licence has to be taken and accordingly one licence fee is payable irrespective of the number of trades and businesses of the classes specified in Section 259 (1) carried on in a particular place is rejected. It is further held that the Municipality was perfectly justified in calling upon the petitioner to take separate licences with liability to pay separate licence fees for the different businesses coming under the scope of Sub-section 259 (1) of the Bihar Municipal Act which are being carried on by him.
7. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs and hearing fee Rs. 100 only, Narasimham, C.J.
8. I agree