Judgment :- K.A. SWAMI, C.J. These two appeals are preferred against a common order dt. 20-1-1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 20700/92 and 19810/93. In W.P. No. 20700/92, the petitioner sought for quashing the order dt. 19-12-92 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thiruvanmiyur and in W.P. No. 19830/93, the very same petitioner sought for quahsing the order dt. 5-5-93 under reference No. Z.O. HD/C. No. A1/04192/93 of the Assistant Health Officer, Zone X, Mylapore, Madras-4 and also the proceedings dated 11-5-93 sealing the premises No. 120, L.B. Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Madras and further to direct the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras to reconsider the application for renewal of licence dated 10-2- 93. 2. In W.P. No. 20700/92, out of which W.A. No.264/94 arises, the petitioner, as already pointed out has sought for quashing the order passed by the Inspector of Police, Thiruvanmiyur dated 19-12-1992, preventing the petitioner from carrying on the offensive trade namely saw mill, pending verification of the position about the permission granted, plan approved and as to whether the machineries were installed properly since prima facie it appeared to him to be unlawful and the operation of the saw mill was creating nuisance to the neighbours. W.P. No.19830 of 1993 has been filed by the appellant praying for a writ of certiorari fied mandamus to call for and quash the proceedings of the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, pursuant to the order dated 5-5-1993 under reference No. 20. XH.D./C. No. A.1/04192/93 and the proceedings dated 11-5-1993 in sealing the premises No. 120, Lattice Bridge Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Madras-41 in so far as it related to the petitioner and for a consequential direction to the Commissioner to reconsider the application for renewal of licence dated 10-2-1993 said to have been filed by the petitioner. The learned single Judge held that in the criminal case, the criminal Court found that the saw mill in question was creating nuisance and inas much as no steps have been taken to abate the nuisance, the petitioner was convicted and imposed a fine of Rs. 50/- by the XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras on 25-1-1993 in S.N.S.T.C. No.7 of 1993 on the petitioner also admitting his guilt. 3. 50/- by the XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras on 25-1-1993 in S.N.S.T.C. No.7 of 1993 on the petitioner also admitting his guilt. 3. It is seen from the materials on record, and we find that the learned single Judge has also verified from the files, the relevant facts, the correctness of which is not seriously in dispute or in controversy before us, that there is a Housing Board residential colony adjacent to the premises in question of the petitioner, which was said to have come into existence even in 1982, and that though the petitioner applied for the renewal of licence on 10-2-1993 for the year 1993-94, the Assistant Health Officer has informed the petitioner under the proceedings dated 5-5-1993 placing on record the fact regarding the conviction and unabated continuance of the nuisance and the further fact that the application for the renewal for the year 1993-94 cannot be considered, while ordering for obtaining the refund of the 50% of the licence fee from the R.D.L.B. X Zone, Corporation of Madras. It is also seen that the Special Officer of the Corporation has also, on 23-4-1993, passed a resolution pursuant to which the premises in question used for carrying on objectionable and offending business was closed and sealed at 9.15 A.M. on 11-5-1993 in the presence of the officials of the Corporation. The learned single Judge has considered all these aspects in detail and has found that the nuisance caused by reason of the operation of the saw mill which is situated very near to the residential colony of the Housing Board has not been stopped and no action has also been taken to abate the nuisance as directed by the officials and that, therefore, there was no substance of merit in the grievance of the petitioner or the challenge made to the impugned proceedings and the action of the respondents. The learned single Judge also rejected the writ petition on the ground that when there was a conviction by the criminal Court on the ground of public nuisance created by the operation of the saw mill by the petitioner and no action has been taken to abate the same in spite of the several opportunities given to the petitioner, no relief can be granted to him as prayed for. 4. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Section 365(10) of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 and contended that as no order was passed and communicated to the appellant, on his application filed for renewal, within 60 days from the date of receipt of the application, the application for renewal must be deemed to have been granted, and as such, the appellant/petitioner is entitled to operate the saw mill. In this regard, it is relevant to notice that no application for renewal has been filed by the appellant. No doubt, he appears to have paid the amount for the purpose of the renewal of licence. No doubt, Section 365 (10) of the Act deals with the renewal of licence. In the case of the petitioner, whose licence has been suspended, for certain, violations, merely because he filed an application for renewal of the licence and pays fees for the renewal of licence, when the order of suspension of the licence is in force, it is not possible to hold that it is open to such petitioner to invoke the deeming provision as contemplated under Section 365(10) of the Act. If the application for renewal of licence does not suffer from any infirmity, then only it would be possible to invoke the deeming provision, otherwise the very object of providing such a deeming provision will be defeated and it would become handy for those who do not care for law. Therefore, we are of the view, that in the case of the petitioner, whose licence has been suspended, the deeming provision contained in Section 365(10) of the Act, cannot be applied, for the renewal of such licence. Accordingly, we see no ground to interfere with the order of the learend single Judge. No other contention is urged before us by the appellant. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. No costs. Appeals dismissed.