ORDER: 1. Heard both the parties. 2. The above revision is directed against the order dated 5.10.1995 in C.C.No.756 of 1993 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, wherein, the petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under Secs.249 and 250 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act and imposed a fine of Rs.100 in default of which, two weeks simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec.249 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act and with a fine of Rs.750 in default of which, ten weeks simple imprisonment, for the offence punishable underSec.250 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act. 3. According to the prosecution the petitioner was running a factory without proper licence, and therefore, they have committed offences punishable under Secs.249 and 250 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act. 4. Two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.VV.2 and five documents were marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P5 on behalf of the prosecution. Similarly, one witness namely D.W.I was examined on the side of the petitioner as defence. 5. The trial court after considering the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 convicted the petitioners for the offence punishable under Secs.249 and 250 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act and imposed a fine of Rs.100 in default of which two weeks simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec.249 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act and further imposed a fine of Rs.750 in default of which, ten weeks simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec.250 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act. Aggrieved by the said order dated 5.10.95 in C.C.No.356 of 1993, the petitioner has preferred the above revision. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the order of conviction and sentence dated 5.10.1995 contends that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, failed to consider the evidence of D.W.1 who has deposed that the petitioner has not paid the renewal fee of Rs.366 for the year 1993-94. In fact, he also invited my attention to the deposition of D.W.1 that they have also paid the licence fee of Rs.240 for the earlier period 1992-93. 7. In fact, he also invited my attention to the deposition of D.W.1 that they have also paid the licence fee of Rs.240 for the earlier period 1992-93. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the mere non-renewal of the licence cannot be a ground to convict the petitioner for the offences punishable under Secs.249 and 250 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, because by operation of Sec.250(7), the petitioner was deemed to have been granted confirmation. 8. In the instant case, as per the evidence of D.W.1, the licence fee of Rs.250 was paid to the respondent municipality along with the application on 6.5.1992 and thereafter the renewal fee of Rs.366 was paid by the petitioner on 15.2.1993. But the respondent municipality has not passed orders within sixty days. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner factory was deemed to have been granted permission for running the factory. 9. On the other hand, the respondent municipality is not in a position to contradict the statement of the petitioner with regard to the payment of renewal fee. 10. I have given a careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 11. In this connection, it is relevant to refer Sec.250(7) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act:z “Sec.250(7): Save as otherwise specially provided in this Act, if orders on an application for permission under Sub-sec.(i) are not received by the applicant within sixty days after the receipt of the application by the executive authority, permission shall be deemed to have been granted subject to the law, rules, by laws, regulations and all conditions ordinarily imposed.” 12. It is not in dispute that in view of Sec.250(7) once an applicant is allowed to file an application and thereafter, if the respondent fails to pass appropriate orders within sixty days after the receipt of such application with renewal fee, the renewal was deemed to have been granted. Therefore, in view of the operation as Sec.250(7), I do not think that the order of conviction and sentence imposed by order dated 5.10.1995 in C.C.No.756 of 1993 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, will hold good. Therefore, the same is set aside. In the result, the revision is allowed. However, there will be no orders, as to costs. Petition allowed.