- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Chandi Prasad v. Rameshwar Prasad Agarwal And Another Opposite Party.
Structured Summary of the Opinion — Dutta, J.
Factual and Procedural Background
This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges an order of the authorities of the Arrah Municipality. The Municipality held that the petitioner was liable to obtain three separate licences and pay three separate licence fees under Section 259(1) of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act for carrying on activities described as crushing oil seeds, crushing wheat and polishing rice at premises situated in Mohalla Chowdhriana of Arrah Town.
The petitioner stated that he carried on the businesses of crushing oil seeds and crushing wheat only, in the same premises, using an electric motor of ten horsepower, and that only one licence and one licence fee should be required. The Municipality, in its counter-affidavit, alleged that the petitioner was running three businesses. The petitioner filed a rejoinder reiterating that he ran only two businesses and not the rice polishing business. The factual dispute as to whether two or three businesses were being carried on was not argued before the court, and the court declined to enter into that disputed question of fact in the present writ petition.
The single legal point argued and decided concerned the interpretation of Section 259(1): whether one licence suffices for carrying on more than one of the trades or businesses specified in that sub‑section at the same premises, or whether separate licences and separate fees are required for each trade or business.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether only one licence must be taken for carrying on, at 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 corresponding liability to pay separate fees must be taken for carrying on each such trade or business.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner contended that he carried on crushing oil seeds and wheat only (using a 10 HP electric motor) and therefore was liable to take out only one licence and pay only one licence fee.
- He argued that a licence is granted with respect to a particular place, so once the place is licensed the number of trades or businesses carried on at that place is immaterial.
- He further submitted that the word “any” in the phrase “for any of the following trades and businesses” in Section 259(1) should be read to mean “all,” and therefore a single licence can cover any number of the listed trades or businesses when conducted at the same place.
Municipality's Position
- In its counter-affidavit the Municipality alleged that the petitioner had been running three businesses (crushing oil seeds, crushing wheat and polishing rice) and not only two.
- Implicitly, the Municipality asserted the correctness of its order requiring the petitioner to take separate licences and pay separate licence fees for the different businesses it considered to be carried on at the premises.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Emperor v. Mayandi Konan, (1907) ILR 30 Mad 220 | Facts: Proceeding under Section 188(n) of the Madras District Municipalities Act for keeping more than ten heads of cattle for trade without a licence; held that the user of the place was of a merely temporary character and acquittal was not interfered with. | The court found this case to be of no bearing on the present point; the facts and point decided were different from the question under consideration in the present matter. |
| Gobinda Chandra Mullich v. Chairman of the Hooghly and Chinsura Municipality, AIR 1922 Cal 99 | Consideration whether Section 261 of the Bengal Municipal Act applies to a business being per se offensive or also to a place of business from which offensive and unwholesome smells may arise; the court held the section covers a place of business from which offensive smells may arise (and distinguished the English law on the subject). | The court held this case did not assist the petitioner on the question whether a single licence can cover multiple distinct trades; the point in that case was different and therefore it was not helpful here. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the language and purpose of Section 259(1) and the context in which the word “any” appears. It noted that Section 15 of the Bihar and Orissa General Clauses Act, 1917 provides that words in the singular include the plural and vice versa unless the subject or context indicates otherwise, and therefore whether “any” implies “all” must be determined by context.
The court analysed the relevant wording of sub‑section (1): that “no place shall be used without a licence ... for any of the following trades or businesses” followed by a list. From this structure the court concluded that the licence is required in respect of the particular trade or business to be carried on at the place and that the purpose for which the licence is granted is the main object. The mere fact that a licence refers to a place does not render the number or nature of trades carried on at that place immaterial.
The court set out the statutory purpose: to give the Commissioners an opportunity to determine whether carrying on a specified trade or business at a particular place would be proper, having regard to health, safety and related considerations (including cleanliness and sanitation). Because those considerations depend on the nature of the particular trade or business, the Commissioners must assess each trade or business individually.
The court observed that the trades listed in clauses (i) to (xiii) and the notified businesses under clause (xiv) are diverse in nature and require distinct considerations in deciding whether to grant a licence. It was therefore unreasonable to read the statute to permit many diverse and unrelated classes of trades to be carried on at one place under a single licence.
The court also relied on sub‑section (3) of Section 259, which permits the Commissioners to levy a fee (subject to a maximum fixed by the State Government) and to impose conditions on licences. The court noted there is nothing in sub‑section (3) that restricts the Commissioners from prescribing separate fees or scales of fees for different classes of businesses; likewise, conditions attached to licences would necessarily vary according to the nature of each trade or business. On these bases the court concluded that separate licences (and corresponding separate fees) are appropriate in relation to each distinct trade or business specified in Section 259(1).
The court observed that the petitioner was unable to cite any binding authority supporting the proposition that a single licence can cover multiple distinct listed trades; two cases cited by the petitioner were considered and found to be inapposite because they dealt with different legal questions and factual settings.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The writ petition is DISMISSED.
The court rejected the petitioner's contention that only one licence and one licence fee are required irrespective of the number of listed trades or businesses carried on at a particular place. It held that the Municipality was justified in requiring the petitioner to take separate licences and to pay separate licence fees for the different businesses falling within the scope of sub‑section 259(1) that were being carried on by him.
Direct consequences for the parties: the petition is dismissed with costs and a hearing fee of Rs. 100 was imposed. The opinion does not state that it sets any new precedent beyond applying and interpreting the provisions of Section 259(1) and sub‑section (3); no broader implications or novel legal doctrines are asserted in the text beyond the direct effect on the petitioner and the Municipality.
Note: Chief Justice Narasimham concurred (recorded in the opinion).
Dutta, J.:— 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. 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.
3. 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 S. 259(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 S. 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.”
4. This is followed by specification of a number of trades and businesses under Cls. (i) to (xiii) and the next item which falls under Cl. (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.”
5. 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 Cl. (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 S. 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.
6. 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 earned 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-s. (1) of S. 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 S. 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.
7. 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 me 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.
8. As already pointed out, sub-s. (1) of S. 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.
9. 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.
10. The trades and businesses specified in Cls. (i) to (xiii) of sub-s. (1) and in the notification issued under Cl. (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-s. (3) of S. 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-s. 259(1) is quite untenable. It further follows from the provisions of sub-s. (3) of S. 259 that the Municipality is entitled to realise a separate fee in connection with each such licence.
11. 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) of the 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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 S. 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.
15. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs and hearing fee Rs. 100 only.
16. Narasimham, C.J:— I agree.
JJ/VPP/G.G.M
17. Petition dismissed.
Alert