Judgment These two appeals have been filed by the Commissioner of Mannargudi Municipality against the judgments of the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Mannargudi in C.C. Nos. 2232 and 2233 of 1976 acquitting the accused (in the two cases) of offences punishable under sections 249 and 313 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act-hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Commissioner filed two complaints in the aforesaid two cases against the two respondents for offences punishable under sections 249 and 313 of the Act on identical allegations, and though two different judgments have been delivered by the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate, the Judgments are identical except for the names of the respondents. The arguments in both the appeals were heard together and therefore it is convenient to dispose of both the appeals by a common judgment. 2. The Municipal Council, Mannargudi by its resolution No. 449, dated 28th February, 1975 increased the rate of levy of licence-fee for dangerous and obnoxious trades. Among the trades for which the licence fee was increased were retail sales of foodgrains, groundnuts, chillies, jaggery, cotton seeds and other agricultural products likely to attract rates. The licence-fee which was existing on the date of the resolution was Rs. 5 per annum and by the aforesaid resolution, this was increased to Rs. 30 per annum. The two respondents obtained orders of the Sub-Collector, Mannargudi authorising them to deal in retail sale of rice or paddy in the premises described in the certificates issued to the respondents. Thereafter, they applied to the municipality to grant them licences to carry on the said retail sale in the respective premises and remitted a sum of Rs. 30 each, which is the fee prescribed in the aforesaid resolution. The applications were neither granted nor rejected. Instead, the Commissioner has issued notices dated 2nd March, 1976 to the respondents informing them that the licence fee fixed for retail business is Rs. 100 and directing them to pay the balance with penalty at the rate of 25 paise per rupee within a week after the receipt of the notice and promising to consider the applications thereafter. The Commissioner has also held out a threat to initiate legal proceedings against the applicants if the amounts demanded were not paid. However, the applications were not rejected. 3. The demand of the Commissioner for payment of a sum of Rs. The Commissioner has also held out a threat to initiate legal proceedings against the applicants if the amounts demanded were not paid. However, the applications were not rejected. 3. The demand of the Commissioner for payment of a sum of Rs. 100 from each of the applicants instead of the fee of Rs. 30 sent by them is illegal and without jurisdiction. A fee of Rs. 100 has been fixed for the issue of licence for storing of food grains, including paddy. The respondents did not apply for licences to store food grains and therefore they were not able to pay a licence fee of Rs. 100 each. It is abundantly clear from a copy of the District Gazette, dated 11th March, 1958, that only a sum of Rs. 30 is payable as licence fee to conduct a retail business in rice, paddy, etc. The demand of the Commissioner for payment of a sum of Rs. 100 by way of licence fee is therefore preposterous, oppressive and if not malicious, atleast thoughtless. As this illegal demand of the Commissioner was not met, two complaints were given against the respondents by the Commissioner. I may straightaway say that these prosecutions are not maintainable because the respondents who had applied for licences to carry on the retail sale in rice and who had remitted licence fee, were entitled to carry on the business by reason of the deeming provision in section 321 (11) of the Act, as no order rejecting their applications was passed and communicated to them within thirty days after the receipt of the applications by the Commissioner of the Municipality. 4. The learned Counsel for the Commissioner wants me to read the communications, dated 2nd March, 1976 marked as Exhibit P-2 in both the cases as rejections of the applications I am unable to find any such order in Exhibit P-2. In Exhibit P-2, the Commissioner has merely promised to consider the applications on payment of the balance. It is not a final order rejecting the application. Therefore, the aforesaid deeming provision in the Act can be availed of by the respondents herein to conduct their retail trades. 5. In Exhibit P-2, the Commissioner has merely promised to consider the applications on payment of the balance. It is not a final order rejecting the application. Therefore, the aforesaid deeming provision in the Act can be availed of by the respondents herein to conduct their retail trades. 5. In Thiruvengadasami Naidu v. Municipal Health Officer, Karaikudi1 a Full Bench of this Court has laid down as follows: “………….we think that in a case where a person is prosecuted for carrying on an industry or trade for which a licence to do so has been refused, it is open to the Court to find out whether the order of the statutory body was made without jurisdiction; whether on the face of it the order is illegal or whether it is unreasonable revolting or repugnant to conscience. But where the order is in the legitimate exercise of jurisdiction vested in the statutory body and passed bona fide after considering the evidence before it, even if the order is wrong on the merits, the Court cannot hold that it is wrong. It is not the function of the Court to substitute its judgment as an appellate authority for that of the Statutory Body. In cases where the party pleads that no licence is necessary it is one of jurisdiction. But where the plea is that even though a licence is necessary it has been refused on the merits, the plea cannot be considered as one involving jurisdiction at all.” In the instant cases, the applications for the issue of the licences have not been refused or rejected. The Commissioner has no jurisdiction to demand as licence fee any amount in excess of what has been fixed by the resolution of the Municipality and published in the District Gazette, dated 11th March, 1958. Therefore, the prosecution is illegal. 6. It is very unfortunate that this Commissioner should have behaved in an arbitrary, whimsical and capricious manner and without trying to understand the provisions of law under which he purported to act. When it is abundantly clear from the resolution of the Municipality that the licence fee payable for a retail trade is only Rs. 30, I am unable to understand how or why the Commissioner chose to demand Rs. 100, which is the fee for the issue of a licence to store food grains. When it is abundantly clear from the resolution of the Municipality that the licence fee payable for a retail trade is only Rs. 30, I am unable to understand how or why the Commissioner chose to demand Rs. 100, which is the fee for the issue of a licence to store food grains. If this Commissioner is incapable of understanding this simple fact, I wonder how he can administer the more complicated affairs of a municipality. The demand of the Commissioner for payment of Rs. 100 from the applicants to carry on the retail sales of rice for which the fee prescribed is only Rs. 30 is oppressive. The prosecution instituted by the Commissioner on the basis of the illegal demand is without any reasonable and probable cause. The learned trial Magistrate was right in dismissing both the complaints and acquitting the accused. These criminal appeals fail and they are dismissed. R.S. ----- Appeals dismissed.