Judgment :- W.P.No. 20700 of 1992 has been filed for the following relief: To issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 19-12-1992 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Tiruvanmiyur, and quash the same. W.P.No. 19830 of 1993 has been filed for the following relief: To issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, pursuant to the order dated 5-5-1993 under Ref.No.20 Z.O.X.HD/C.No./A1/ 04192/93 of the Assistant Health Officer, Zone X. Mylapore, Madras-4, and the Proceedings dated 11-5-1993 in sealing the premises at No.120 L.B.Road, Tiruvanmiyur, Madras-41, in so far as the petitioner is concerned and quash the same and to direct the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras to reconsider the application for renewal of licence dated 10-2-1993 filed by the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, he is running a Timber and Saw Mill at No. 120 Lattice Bridge Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Madras-41, under the name and style of ‘Nataraja Nadar & Sons’, under a valid licence dated 9-9-1991. He was allowed to use 18 H.P.motor for wood cutting and also allowed to store timber. He claims to have applied for renewal on 10-2-1993 and that his application for renewal was not considered in accordance with the rules and regulations and an order was passed on 5-5-1993 rejecting his ren ewal application at the behest of rival businessmen and other enemies. He claims that no sound nuisance is caused by running the saw mill. It is argued that the order dated 5-5-1993 rejecting his renewal application is arbitrary and illegal. By virtue of sub-section (10) of Section 365 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, the application for renewal of licence for the year 1993-94 shall be deemed to have been allowed for that year since no order was passed on the renewal application within sixty days from 10-2-1993. Further, no opportunity of hearing was given to him. Therefore, the impugned order was bad. No show cause notice was issued to him. The petitioner states in his affidavit that he intends to prefer an appeal against the impugned order dated 5-5-1993 and that the action of the Corporation in sealing the premises is illegal and totally unjust. The petitioner also claims to have rectified the defects pointed out by the Corporation authorities in the notice dated 4-11-1992. The petitioner states in his affidavit that he intends to prefer an appeal against the impugned order dated 5-5-1993 and that the action of the Corporation in sealing the premises is illegal and totally unjust. The petitioner also claims to have rectified the defects pointed out by the Corporation authorities in the notice dated 4-11-1992. Hence, he has preferred W.P. No. 19830 of 1993 challenging the order dated 5-5-1993 of the Corporation of Madras rejecting his application for renewal of licence for the year 1993-94. 3. The Corporation of Madras filed a counter affidavit through its Commissioner. It is seen from the counter affidavit that behind the saw mill run by the petitioner, H.I.G. Blocks constructed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board is situated and that the licence granted to the petitioner was valid upto 31-3-1993. A complaint dated 26-3-1993 was received from the Flat Owners Association to the effect that the running of the saw mill in the premises in question was causing great sound and nuisance to the residents of the Housing Board Colony. Further, on account of the running of the saw mill, vibration is caused to the buildings resulting in cracks. According to the Corporation, a notice was issued on 25-11-1992 directing the petitioner to provide sound proof to avoid sound nuisance and the petitioner failed to take steps to abate the nuisance. Therefore, the petitioner was prosecuted and fined before the 20th Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras. It is also further averred that the petitioner has encroached upon Corporation property. According to the Corporation, the saw mill was sealed because the petitioner was running the same after the licence was refused. The Health Officer has given a notice on 7-5-1993 to the petitioner to abate the nuisance and despite the same, the petitioner did not take steps to abate the nuisance. 4. The Gitanjali Colony Flat Owners Association filed W.M.P.No.32482 of 1993 for impleading themselves as a party and they were impleaded as 2nd respondent in W.P.No.19830 of 1993 by order dated 30-11-1993. A counter affidavit has been filed by them. It is stated that the above Housing Board Colony came into existence in 1982 and there are 24 residential houses in the said colony. The petitioner has obtained the licence for running the saw mill by suppressing the fact about the existence of the residential colony. A counter affidavit has been filed by them. It is stated that the above Housing Board Colony came into existence in 1982 and there are 24 residential houses in the said colony. The petitioner has obtained the licence for running the saw mill by suppressing the fact about the existence of the residential colony. According to them, the saw mill is posing a health hazard on account of the sound and vibration nuisance. 5. Mr. R. Krishnamurthi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the following contentions: a) The petitioner made an application for renewal of licence and no orders were passed on the said application and consequently the petitioner is deemed to have been granted renewal by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (10) of Section 365 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919. b) No opportunity was given to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order to put forth his case. c) The impugned order was vitiated by bias and mala fides. d) No valid reasons are assigned for not granting the licence to the petitioner. e) No inspection was done by the officials of the Corporation before issuing the impugned order. 6. Mr. A. L.Somayaji, learned counsel appearing for the residents of the colony, viz., the 2nd respondent would submit that the petitioner cannot rely on the last part of the subsection (10) of Section 365 of the Act inasmuch as the licence granted to the petitioner was kept in abeyance on 1-4-1993. Elaborating his submissions, he would argue that sub-section (10) of Section 365 of the Act makes a distinction between renewal of licence, permission or rejection and fresh application for licence. According to the learned counsel, in as much as the petitioner’s licence was kept in abeyance on 1-4-1993, the deeming provision contained in sub-section (10) of section 365 of the Act cannot be invoked by the petitioner. 7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to extract herein the provisions of sub-section (b) and (10) of Section 365 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act and Section 289 of the Act. “289. 7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to extract herein the provisions of sub-section (b) and (10) of Section 365 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act and Section 289 of the Act. “289. Commissioner may issue directions for abatement of nuisance caused by steam or other power.- (1) If, in any factory, workshop or work-place in which steam-power, water power or other mechanical power or electric power is used, nuisance is in the opinion of the Commissioner caused by the particular kind of fuel used or by the noise or vibration created he may issue such directions as he thinks fit for the abatement of the nuisance within a reasonable time to be specified for the purpose. .(2) If there has been wilful default in carrying out such directions or if abatement is found impracticable, the Commissioner may- (a) prohibit the use of the particular kind of fuel; or .(b) prohibit the working of the factory, workshop or work-place altogether until such directions have been carried out or between the hours of 6.00 P.M., and 6-00 A.M or during any particular time or times between such hours. 365. General provisions regarding licences, regulations and permissions-(1) Every licence or permission granted under this Act or any rule or by-law made under it shall specify the period, if any, for which and the restrictions, limitations and conditions subject to which the same is granted, and shall be signed by the commissioner. .(2) x x x x .(3) x x x x .(4) Subject to the special provisions in Chapters X, X-A and XII regarding buildings, cherish and hutting grounds and private markets and subject to such sanction as may be required for the refusal of a licence or permission, any licence or permission granted under this Act and any rule or by-law made under it may at any time be suspended or revoked by the Commissioner if any of its restrictions, limitations or conditions is evaded or infringed by the grantee, or if the grantee is convicted for the breach of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule, by- law or regulation made under it in any matter to which such licence or permission relates, or if the grantee has obtained the same by misrepresentation or fraud. .(5) x x x x .(6) When any licence or permission is suspended or revoked, or when the period for which it was granted or within which application for renewal should be made has expired, whichever expires later, the grantee shall for all purposes of this Act, or any rule or by-law made under it be deemed to be without a licence or permission until the order suspending or revoking the licence or permission is cancelled subject to subsection (10), until the licence or permission is renewed, as the case may be. .(7) x x x x .(8) x x x x .(9) x x x x .(10) the acceptance by the Corporation of the prepayment of the fee referred to in clause (a) or the sum referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) for a licence or permission or for registration shall not entitle the person making such prepayment to the licence or remission or to registration, as the case may be, but only to refund of an amount not exceeding one half of the fee or sum aforesaid as my be decided by the council in the case of refusal of the licence or permission or of registration; but an application for the renewal of a licence or permission or registration shall until communication of orders on his application be entitled to act as if the licence or permission or registration had been renewed; and, save as otherwise specially provided in this Act, if orders on an application for a licence or permission or for registration are not received by the applicant within sixty days after the receipt of the application by the Commissioner the application shall be deemed to have been allowed for the year or for such lesser period as is mentioned in the application and subject to the law, rule, bylaws, regulations and all conditions ordinarily imposed.” 8. Under Section 289 of the Act, the Commissioner is empowered to issue necessary directions as he thinks fit for the abatement of nuisance caused by the particular kind of fuel used or by the noise or vibration created in any factory, workshop or work-place wherein inter alia, electric power is used. Under Section 289 of the Act, the Commissioner is empowered to issue necessary directions as he thinks fit for the abatement of nuisance caused by the particular kind of fuel used or by the noise or vibration created in any factory, workshop or work-place wherein inter alia, electric power is used. If there has been wilful default in carrying out such directions or if the abatement is found impracticable, the Commissioner can also prohibit the working of the factory, workshop or work-place altogether until such directions have been carried out. 9. Under sub-section (4) of Section 365 of the Act, the Commissioner can also suspend or revoke any licence or permission granted under the provisions of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, inter alia, if the grantee is convicted for a breach of any of the provisions of the Actor the rules, by laws, or regulations made under the Act, or if the grantee has obtained the licence or permission by misrepresentation or fraud. 10. Sub-section(10) of Section 365 of the Act consists of three parts. The first part states (1) the acceptance by the Corporation of the prepayment of the fee referred in Clause (a) or the sum referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) for a licence or permission or for rejection shall not entitle the person making such payment to the licence or remission, as the case may be, but only to refund of an amount not exceeding one half of the fee or the sum aforesaid, as may be decided by the Council in case of refusal of the licence or permission or of rejection. 11. The second part deals with renewal of the licence or permission and it provides that an applicant for renewal of licence or permission or registration shall until communication of orders on his application be entitled to act as if the licence or permission or registration had been renewed. .12. The third part provides that save as otherwise specifically provided in the Act, if orders on application for a licence or permission, etc. are not received by the applicant within sixty days after the receipt of the application, by the Commissioner, the application shall be deemed to have been allowed for the year or for such lesser period as is mentioned in the application and subject to the law, rules, by-laws, regulations and all conditions ordinarily imposed. .13. are not received by the applicant within sixty days after the receipt of the application, by the Commissioner, the application shall be deemed to have been allowed for the year or for such lesser period as is mentioned in the application and subject to the law, rules, by-laws, regulations and all conditions ordinarily imposed. .13. From a conjoint reading of the above provisions, the following principles, in my opinion, would emerge: Sub-section (10) of Section 365 of the Act makes a clear distinction between a case of renewal of a licence or permission or registration and a fresh application for licence, permission or registration. In the case of renewal of licence or permission, the applicant can continue to carry on business or trade after making the application until the time stipulated in sub-section (9-A) of Section 365 of the Act. as if the licence or permission has been renewed till orders are communicated on the application for renewal. Whereas, in the case of fresh application for a licence or permission or registration, if no orders are passed and communicated within sixty days after the receipt of application, the application shall be deemed to have been allowed. On account of inaction or default on the part of the authority to pass orders and communicate the same within sixty days, the application is deemed to have been allowed. Thus, it is very clear that the above sub-section (10) of Section 365 of the Act makes clear distinction between renewal of an application for licence, permission on the one hand and fresh application for licence or permission on the other. It is open to the authority to invoke the provisions of subsection (4) and suspend or revoke the licence or permission on the grounds mentioned therein. 14. Under the provisions of Section 289 of the Act, the Commissioner is authorised to issue directions to abate nuisance caused by particular kind of fuel used or by the noise or vibration created in any factory or workshop or work-place where power, steam or water or mechanical or electric is used within a reasonable time to be specified. In the event, there being default in complying with the said directions, the Commissioner can prohibit the working of the factory, workshop or work-place until directions for abatement are carried out. .15. In the event, there being default in complying with the said directions, the Commissioner can prohibit the working of the factory, workshop or work-place until directions for abatement are carried out. .15. In the light of the above legal provisions, the facts of the present case have to be examined. Licence was granted to the petitioner to run a saw mill at No. 120, Lattice Bridge Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Madras - 41 by the Corporation of Madras. I have perused the files produced by the Corporation of Madras. There is a Housing Board residential colony adjacent to the above premises of the petitioner and that colony had come into existence sometime in 1982. On 10-2-1993, the petitioner applied for renewal of the licence for the year 1993-94. By the order dated 14-1-1993, the Asst. Health Officer of the Corporation of Madras kept the licence issued to the petitioner for wood cutting with 18 H.P. motor and storing timber (saw mill) in abeyance, on the ground that the petitioner was prosecuted and fined by the 20th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Madras for causing nuisance in the factory and that nuisance continued to exist and that the petitioner had encroached on the Corporation land. .16. Admittedly, the petitioner was prosecuted for causing sound nuisance before the Criminal Court by the Corporation of Madras and the petitioner was fined on 1. 1993, by the Magistrate concerned. The Health Officer of the Corporation of Madras sent a communication on 11. 1992 to the petitioner to raise the walls to the roof level and cement plastered the same wherever necessary. Another communication dated 211. 1992 was sent to the petitioner by the Corporation of Madras calling upon him to provide sound proof to avoid sound nuisance within the time stipulated therein. Because the petitioner defaulted to take steps t o abate the above nuisance, the petitioner was prosecuted before the Criminal Court and fined. Hence, it is clear that in spite of the opportunity given, the petitioner did not take steps to abate the sound nuisance. Finally, order was passed on 5. 1993 rejecting the petitioner’s application for renewal of the licence for 1993-94 on the ground that the petitioner was punished by the Criminal Court for causing sound nuisance and the sound nuisance continued to remain unabated. 17. Finally, order was passed on 5. 1993 rejecting the petitioner’s application for renewal of the licence for 1993-94 on the ground that the petitioner was punished by the Criminal Court for causing sound nuisance and the sound nuisance continued to remain unabated. 17. There is no substance in the contention that the petitioner was not given opportunity to abate the nuisance and the impugned order was passed without giving any opportunity to him. The file produced by the Corporation speaks volume for it. .18. The contention of Mr. R. Krishnamurthi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, that there are no valid grounds for passing the impugned order is also without any merit. .The impugned order is based on legal and valid grounds. The petitioner was put on notice on 211. 1992 and asked to take steps to abate the sound nuisance but the petitioner did not take any steps to abate the same. I also find from the file produced by the Corporation that the Health authorities had inspected the place and found that sound nuisance was caused by the running of the said mill. 19. Even the charge of mala fides cannot be accepted. No proper plea is raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and necessary parties have not been impleaded. A charge of mala fides, which is serious in nature, should be supported by necessary and proper pleadings and necessary parties should be impleaded. Except alleging that the impugned order was issued at the behest of business rivals, no other details or particulars are furnished. This apart, the ground of mala fide can be considered only in the presence of other parties against whom allegations of mala fides have been made. They are not before this Court. 20. I am also unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that after the expiry of sixty days from the date of his application viz., 10-2-1993, the petitioner should be deemed to have been granted licence for 1993-94 for running the saw mill. First of all, the present case is one for renewal of licence and the licence was kept in abeyance by the order dated 1-4-1993. W.P.No.6900 of 1993 filed by the petitioner challenging the said order was dismissed. Subsequently, on 5-5-1993 the Corporation has rejected the renewal application. First of all, the present case is one for renewal of licence and the licence was kept in abeyance by the order dated 1-4-1993. W.P.No.6900 of 1993 filed by the petitioner challenging the said order was dismissed. Subsequently, on 5-5-1993 the Corporation has rejected the renewal application. Therefore, the petitioner, who applied for renewal of licence, cannot contend that after sixty days from 10-2-1993 licence is deemed to have been granted to him. I have earlier set out the legal position in this regard. In this view, there is no scope for applying the decision in W.P.No.626 of 1984. In the instant case, the files produced by the Corporation disclose that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to abate the nuisance. .21. The Corporation in the counter affidavit has stated that the petitioner has encroached on the Corporation property and action has been taken to remove the encroachement. It is seen from the counter that behind the premise where the saw mill is run, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Residential Colony (H.I.G. Flats) called Gitanjali Colony is situated and the residents of the colony have complained of sound and vibration nuisance caused by the saw mill and that the officials of the Corporation have inspected the premises and found the complaint to be true and therefore abeyance order dated 1-4-1993 was issued keeping in abeyance of the licence issued to the petitioner. The said resident association got itself impleaded pursuant to orders dated 30-11-1993 in W.M.P. No.32482 of 1992. 22. Mr. A. L.Somayaji raised the contention that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the material fact that there is a Housing Board residential colony adjacent to the saw mill and has made a deliberate false statement in the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.20700 of 1992, in that, in paragraph 4 it is sated that “on the four sides of the premises there is no residential house adjoining the same” and therefore the petitioner should not be granted any relief. I refrain from considering the dec ision cited by the 2nd respondent and reported in G.Narayanaswami Reddy v. Govt. I refrain from considering the dec ision cited by the 2nd respondent and reported in G.Narayanaswami Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka ( 1991 (3) S.C.C. 261 ) and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (JT 1993 (6) S.C. 331) and my judgment in V. Tamil Selvan v. The State of Tamil Nadu (1992 W.L.R. 716) and going into this aspect since I have already dealt with the contention of the parties on merits. 23. For the foregoing reasons, I dismiss W.P.No. 19830 of 1993. However, there will be no order as to costs. 24. W.P.No.20700 of 1992: Pursuant to the interim order, the seals have been removed. Consequently, no further orders are necessary in this writ petition. I have already dealt with the various contentions raised by the petition in W.P.No.19830 of 1993, which was filed for quashing the order refusing to renew the licence in favour of the petitioner for running a saw mill. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.