Judgment This is an appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal of the respondent by the First Class Bench Magistrate, Pollachi. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The respondent with the permission of Railway authorities is running a coffee-hotel within the Pollachi railway station premises. The question is whether the municipality is entitled to ask him to take out a licence under section 249 of the District Municipalities Act which runs as follows: “The council may publish a notification in the district gazette and by beat of drums that no place within the Municipal limits of. . . .shall be used for any one or more of the purposes specified in schedule V without licence of the executive authority and except in accordance with the conditions specified therein.” Schedule V (j) mentions about the keeping of a hotel, restaurant, eating-house, coffee-house, boarding-house or lodging-house (other than a students’ hostel under public or recognised control). Therefore under section 249 of the District Municipalities Act for the purpose of running a coffee-hotel in any place within the municipal limits the licence of the executive authority is undoubtedly necessary. But section 244 of the same Act says: “Nothing in this Act or in any rule, by-law or regulation made thereunder shall be construed as requiring the taking out of any licence or the obtaining of any permission under this Act or any such rule or by-law or regulation in respect of any place in the occupation or under the control of the Central or State Government or of a market committee established under the Madras Commercial Crops Committee Markets Act, 1933, or in respect of any Government property or of any property belonging to such market committee.” On the ground that the respondent is running a coffee-hotel in a place which is under the occupation and control of the Central Government, the railways being a concern of the Central Government, the respondent has been acquitted as a person running a coffee-hotel in such places is not required to take out a licence from the executive authority. In C.R.P.No.1566 of 1949,Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J., has held that the municipality is entitled to collect licence fee for storing jute in a place in the vicinity of a minor port situated within the Municipal limits of Bimilipatam. I agree with the reasoning of my learned brother in the above judgment. In C.R.P.No.1566 of 1949,Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J., has held that the municipality is entitled to collect licence fee for storing jute in a place in the vicinity of a minor port situated within the Municipal limits of Bimilipatam. I agree with the reasoning of my learned brother in the above judgment. The principle is that if the Central Government or the State Government or any committee appointed under the Marketing of Commercial Crops Act does anything in a place in their occupation or under their control, for which a licence is required as per Schedule V of the District Municipalities Act, they are supposed to do it in the interests of the public in which case the licence prescribed under the provisions of section 249, of the Act is not necessary according to section 244. But if a private person in the same place or premises under the occupation or control of those bodies does a similar thing he would be required to take out a licence under section 249 and pay the prescribed licence fees. Sections 244 and 249 of the District Municipalities Act have to be read and interpreted only in this way. The acquittal of the respondent by the lower Court is not justified. The order of acquittal is hereby set aside and the respondent is convicted under section 249 read with section 313 of the District Municipalities Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5 (five) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three days. In addition, the respondent is also directed to pay the licence fee of Rs.45 which will be collected by the Court and paid over to the Municipality. R.M. ----- Acquittal set aside.