Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has been convicted of an offence punishable under S.207 (1) (a) read with S.171 (i), of the Madras District Boards Act, 1920 for "continuing to keep open a private market" during the year 1958-1959 without a licence. In view of Kunhammad Kutty v. District Board Revenue Inspector, Badagara,1959 KLT.1181, decided by one of us, in which certain observations were made as to the meaning of S.171 (2) of the Act, this petition, which has been preferred against the conviction, was referred to a Bench, by a learned judge of this Court. 2. The petitioner, who has been running a market in the previous year under a licence granted under the Act, made an application for the renewal of the licence for the year in question, on February 16, 1958, which was received at the Office of the District Board on February 19, 1958, but he did not hear in reply to it, until by Ext. P1 dated December 16, 1958, he was called upon to pay a licence fee of Rs. 300/- and also, what is called a belated application fee of Rs. 75/-. The prosecution of the petitioner, was the result of his non-compliance with this demand. 3. Counsel for the petitioner contended, that no order upon the application having been communicated to the petitioner within thirty days of its receipt by the District Board, the application shall be deemed, as provided by S.212 (11) of the Act, to "have been allowed for the year". It was common ground in this case, that in order to attract S.212 (II), the application for the renewal of the licence must have been made in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It was common ground in this case, that in order to attract S.212 (II), the application for the renewal of the licence must have been made in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The District Board has contended, that the application made, was in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (2) of S.171 of the Act, which reads as follows: "Application for such licence shall be made by the owner of the place in respect of which the licence is sought not less than six weeks before such place is opened as a market or before the commencement of the year for which the licence is sought, as the case may be." In other words, the point was, that the application having been received at the Office of the District Board on February 19, 1958, had not been made "not less than six weeks before the commencement of the year for which the licence is sought". The answer to this was, that under S.171 (2), an application for the renewal of a licence may be made at any time before the commencement of the year for which the licence is sought. This depends on the true construction of the above provision. According to counsel for the District Board, the expression "not less than six weeks" qualifies not only the expression "before such place is opened as a market" in the case of a new market, but also the expression "before the commencement of the year for which the licence is sought" in the case of an existing market. If this were so, the word "before," need not have been used a second time in the sub-section, just as a repetition of the expression "not less than six weeks" had been avoided in it. It is a fair presumption to make, that the legislature does not use words unnecessarily or repeat them without a purpose. We are therefore satisfied, that under S.171 (2), while an application for licence for a new market has to be made not less than six weeks before it is opened, an application for the renewal of a licence of an existing market, may be made, at any time before the commencement of the year for which the licence is to be renewed. Somewhat similar language was employed in S.262 (2) of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920, until it was amended in 1942, by dropping the word "before" where it occurs a second time as in S.171 (2) of the Act concerned in this case. In our judgment a similar amendment may have to be made in 171 (2) of the Act, if the legislature intends to provide for the same period of time for granting a renewal of licence for an existing market, as for a licence for opening a new market. The further argument of counsel, that an interval of time between the application and the grant is not needed in the case of a renewal of licence, as the grant is compulsory, but that it is necessary in the case of an original licence, as the grant is discretionary, does not appeal to us, for the reason, that in both cases, the District Board has, under sub section (3) of S.171, a duty to consider and make "such regulations as to supervision and inspection and such conditions as to sanitation, drainage, water-supply, width of paths and ways, weights and measures to be used and rents and fees to be charged in such market", as may be proper. In Kunhammad Kutty v. District Board Revenue Inspector, Badagara, the application for the renewal of a licence was made after the year had well advanced, and the construction of S.171 (2) did not arise; it was assumed, that the application had to be made not less than six weeks before the commencement of the year and counsel for the petitioner therein, had to resort to other arguments, which had to be considered, and were finally repelled. However, the erroneous assumption made as above, cannot in our opinion, affect the interpretation of S.171 (2). 5. The learned counsel for the District Board also contended that the application was defective, in that, it was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, for the reason, that the licence fee did not accompany the application. In the nature of the charge to which the petitioner was called upon to plead, we do not think, we have to decide this question. The charge was, that the petitioner failed to remit the licence fee and the belated application fee in pursuance of the demand notice served on him, the reference being to Ext. In the nature of the charge to which the petitioner was called upon to plead, we do not think, we have to decide this question. The charge was, that the petitioner failed to remit the licence fee and the belated application fee in pursuance of the demand notice served on him, the reference being to Ext. P1, which stated, that the District Board has, by a specified resolution, fixed the licence fee of the market for the year at Rs. 300/- and the belated application fee at Rs 75/- and called upon the petitioner to make payment within fifteen days. The District Board had no case then, that the application should have been accompanied by the licence fee. We decline to allow the District Board to make out a new case in this revision petition or to decide the general question, as to whether the fee must always accompany the application or not. 6. We therefore come to the conclusion, that the application for the renewal of the licence was in accordance with the Act, and this is sufficient to attract the provisions of S.212 (II). The result is, that the application must be deemed to have been allowed for the year. The conviction of the petitioner cannot therefore stand and is set aside. It was not contended, that the belated application fee of Rs. 75/- has any legal basis. The fine of Rs. 75/- to which the petitioner has been sentenced, the belated application fee of Rs. 75/- and the sum of Rs. 50/- towards cost of prosecution, ordered to be levied, if realised from the petitioner, will be refunded, but not the licence fee, if collected. Allowed.