P L D 1966 (W (PLP)

INAMULLAH KHAN, C. J.-This is a petition under Article 2 (4) of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1958, challenging the imposition of licence fee by, the Municipal Committee, Multan. The facts giving rise to this petition briefly put are these. The petitioner is a Union registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. It is formed of sixteen co-operative societies which have a membership of over 3500 persons. They manufacture cloth by handlooms in Multan. The Municipal Committee passed a resolution in 1946 whereby under section 121 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, they imposed a licence fee of Rs. 6.00 yearly to be levied on premises in which handlooms are installed. This, as a result of a representation made by the representatives of the petitioner to the Municipal Committee, remained in abeyance. In 1959, however, the Municipal Committee insisted on payment of the licence fee from the members of the petitioner union. It is further stated that the Municipal Committee did not claim a licence fee for the places where the handlooms are installed but they claim a fee of Rs. 6.00 per annum for each handloom. The petitioner challenged the order of the Municipal Committee by a writ petition which was admitted by this Court on the 9th of June 1959.

2. Mr. Aftab Husain, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, has raised two contentions before us. He contended, in the first place, that the working of the handlooms did not create any unwholesome or offensive noise within the meaning of section 121 of the Act. In the second place, he submitted that the Municipal Committee can only levy a licence fee on the places where handlooms are installed and not on each handloom.

3. In order to dispose of the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, it would be useful to reproduce the relevant provision of section 121 of the Act. It runs as under :- "(1) No place within a municipality shall be used for any of the following purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . as any other manufactory, engine-house, store house or place of business from which offensive or unwholesome smells, gases, noises or smoke arise . . . . . . . . . . . . except under a licence from the committee which shall be renewable annually (4) The owner or occupier of any place registered under subsection (1) may apply to have that place licensed under this section. When any such place has been licensed, the registration of that place shall thereby be cancelled and shall not be renewed. (5) Whoever, without registration or without a licence uses any place for any such purpose as is specified in this section or in contravention of the condition of any such licence, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to fifty rupees, and with a further fine not exceeding ten rupees for every day during which the offence is continued."

4. The first question that requires consideration is as to whether the noise of handloom can be said to be unwholesome. The learned Advocate for the petitioner states that the working of handloom is rhythmic in character and cannot be said to be either a noise or offensive in character. The dictionary meaning of "unwholesome" as given in Oxford New English Dictionary, Volume 10, is as under :- "Not beneficial; salutary, or conducive to morals, etc. detrimental or prejudicial to health of mind." After considering the meaning of "unwholesome" we are of the opinion that the Municipal Committee cannot be said to have acted illegally in imposing a licence fee of Rs. 6.00 for the premises where handloom's are installed. In this connection the learned Advocate wished to make a distinction between a handloom and a pit-loom, so far as the noise is concerned. The learned Advocate submitted that a pit-loom has very much less noise. We do not think that we can, in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction, go into the question of less or more noise. So long as the Municipal Committee is of the opinion that the noise is not beneficial or prejudicial to health it can impose a licence fee on the premises where tile handlooms are installed.

5. There is much force in the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the Municipal Committee cannot levy a licence fee on each handloom. In fact it appears from Annexure B to the petition that the licence fee of Rs. 6.00 per annum has been imposed on the places and not on each handloom. We would, therefore, hold that if the Municipal Committee is realising Rs. 6.00 per annum as licence fee per handloom it is not contemplated by section 121 of the Act. It can, however, realise Rs. 6.00 per annum as licence fee for the premises where the handlooms may be installed, irrespective of the number that may be installed in a place.

6. No one appears for the respondent. We would,, therefore, make no order as to costs. K. B. A. Petition partly accepted.