Order.- The petitioner in this Revision Petition, was prosecuted by the Mysore City Municipality for running his hotel under the name, ‘Carlton Hotel,‘without obtaining a licence for the year 1963-64. The Second City Magistrate, Mysore, found him guilty of the offence under section 51(1)(b) of the Mysore City Municipalities Act, 1933, read with Bye-laws II and IV of Chapter XVI of the Mysore City Municipal Rules and Bye-laws, convicted him under section 245 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.15, and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for seven days. The case was tried summarily. The accused has filed this revision petition challenging the conviction. It is not disputed that the accused held a valid licence to run the hotel for he year 1962-63. He sent an application (Exhibit P-1) to the Mysore City Municipality for renewal of the licence for the year 1963-64. Though that application bore the date 9th April, 1963, it was actually delivered in the Municipal Office on 10th April, 1963. Against column 6 of the application, it was stated that a cheque for Rs.165 had been enclosed towards the licence fees. A note made on this application, presumably, by a clerk in the Municipal Office, stated that the cheque was not received. The Health Officer of the Municipality ordered that the accused should be intimated to credit the licence fee along with a compounding fee at twenty-five per cent. of the licence fee for taking further action. The endorsement (Exhibit P-2) issued in pursuance of this order, though dated 11th June, 1963, was actually served or the accused on 4th July, 1963. On 28th June, 1963, that is, before the endorsement Exhibit P-2 was served on him, the accused addressed a letter (Exhibit D-11) to the Health Officer complaining that he had not heard from the Municipality though he had sent the application with a cheque for Rs.165. This letter was received by the Municipality on 3rd July, 1963. As the endorsement, Exhibit P-2, had already been issued, the Municipal Authorities did not send any reply to that letter. But the accused went on addressing several letters to the Municipality in a tone which can, by no means, be said to be courteous. It was not until 7th February, 1964, that he sent another cheque for Rs.165 with a letter (Exhibit D-4) towards the licence fee. But the accused went on addressing several letters to the Municipality in a tone which can, by no means, be said to be courteous. It was not until 7th February, 1964, that he sent another cheque for Rs.165 with a letter (Exhibit D-4) towards the licence fee. But that cheque did not include the compounding fee demanded by the Municipality. The note made on the letter, Exhibit D-4, shows that the Municipal Authorities were upset by the tone of his letter and decided that action should be taken against him. The prosecution case is that when the Health Inspector visited the Hotel run by the accused, the accused did not produce the licence for the year 1963-64. It is undisputed that the Municipality had not renewed the licence for the year 1963-64; nor had it passed any order declining torenew the licence. Hence the accused could not have produced the licence for 1963-64. The short question for determination in this case is whether the accused, who had made an application within the prescribed time for renewal of his licence for the year 1963-64, could continue to run the Hotel in anticipation of the licence being renewed. Mr. Vedavyasachar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused, has contended that the accused made the application in time for renewal of the licence, sent a cheque towards the licence fee and did all that was expected to be done by an applicant for renewal of the licence; and hence, his running the Hotel till the Municipality refused to renew the licence, cannot constitute an offence. To appreciate this contention of Mr. Vedavyasachar, it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Mysore City Municipalities Act, 1933, and Bye-laws framed thereunder. Section 51(1)(b)(iv) of the Act provides that the Municipal Council may, with the previous sanction of the Government make Bye-laws not inconsistent with the Act prescribing the conditions on or subject to which, and the circumstances in which, and the areas or localities in respect of which, licences may be granted, reduced, suspended or withdrawn for the use of any place not belonging to the Municipal Council, as a restaurant, eating-house, coffee-house, boarding-house or lodging-house. Bye-law I of Chapter XVI of the Mysore City Municipal Rules and Bye-laws, provides that all hotels, restaurants, tea and coffee-houses within the city shall be subject to licence by the President of the City Municipality. Bye-law I of Chapter XVI of the Mysore City Municipal Rules and Bye-laws, provides that all hotels, restaurants, tea and coffee-houses within the city shall be subject to licence by the President of the City Municipality. Bye-law II provides that any person using or wishing to use any premises for any of the above purposes, shall apply to the President for a licence and that the President may, in his discretion, on the advice of the Health Officer, grant licence, suspend or refuse such licence for infringement of any of the conditions attached to the licence or whenever, on grounds of public health or safety, he considers such action necessary. Bye-law III reads as follows: “Application must be made to the President within fifteen days of the commencement of each official year for the renewal of all licences granted under this bye-law and in case of a place to be newly opened, a fortnight before such place is proposed to be opened.” Neither the Act nor the Bye-law contain any provision corresponding to the provision in section 385 (10) of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, which states that an applicant 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. In spite of the absence of such a provision in the Act or in the Bye-laws, Mr. Vedavyasachar contended that until the application for renewal of the licence is disposed of, a person who held the licence during the previous year, would be entitled to carry on the activity which requires a licence. In support of his contention, Mr. Vedavyasachar relied on certain observations of the Madras High Court in Public Prosecutor v. Dhanuskodia1. In that case, the accused had a licence to drive a motor vehicle which was valid up to 11th January, 1949. On 10th January, 1949, he applied to the authorities for the renewal of the licence and that application was returned to him on 20th January, 1949, for want of two recent photographs and two specimen signatures. The accused re-presented the application with the photographs and the specimen signatures. The licence was renewed on 23rd March, 1949, with effect from 12th January, 1949. The accused re-presented the application with the photographs and the specimen signatures. The licence was renewed on 23rd March, 1949, with effect from 12th January, 1949. The case against him was that on 10th January, 1949, he was found driving the motor vehicle without an effective licence. Upholding the acquittal of the accused, Govinda Menon, J., observed as follows: “If a person, who already had a licence and had applied for renewal of the same before the expiry of the term mentioned therein and expects to get it renewal in due course, drives the vehicle after the expiry of the licence but before the renewed licence is actually received, he cannot be said to have driven the vehicle without a licence. He was under the bona fide belief that his licence would be renewed which would take effect from the date of the expiry of the previous licence, for the necessary steps for getting the licence renewed have been taken and as a matter of fact, as has happened here, the licence was granted subsequently with retrospective effect.” Mr. N. Venkatachala, the learned Counsel for the Municipality has contended that in the absence of a provision corresponding to section 385 (1) of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, the holder of a licence, who on the expiry of the licence has applied for its renewal, cannot carry on his activity till the licence is renewed. Mr. Venkatachala added that until the licence is renewed such person cannot be said to have a valid licence to carry on the activity which requires a licence and the mere fact that such a construction of the licensing provisions would lead to hardship, would not be ground for holding that such a person can continue to carry on the activity even after the expiry of the licence but before its renewal. The interpretation which Mr. Venkatachala asks me to place on the licensing provisions, would lead to manifestly unjust results. The interpretation which Mr. Venkatachala asks me to place on the licensing provisions, would lead to manifestly unjust results. If a person who had invested large sums of money, engaged the services of workmen, taken on lease a premises and has been running a business or activity which requires licence, should be asked to suspend his business or activity at the end of every period for which the licence has been granted and to wait until the licensing authorities choose to pass an order renewing the licence, though with retrospective effect, not only the person who runs such business or activity but also his workmen and the general public will be put toloss and hardship, during the period of such suspension. Unless the express words of the licensing provisions compel such a construction, I think the Court should avoid such a construction which would lead to such manifestly unjust and unreasonable consequences. Even the language of Bye-law III implies that a licensee, whose licence has expired, may continue to carry on the business thereafter if he has applied for renewal of the licence within fifteen days of the commencement of the next official year for which renewal is sought. If the construction which Mr. Venkatachala wants me to place on the licensing provisions should be accepted, carrying on of the business activity even during fifteen days after the expiry of the previous official year, would be illegal. Hence a reasonable construction of the licensing provisions is similar to that placed by Govinda Menon, J., in Public Prosecutor v. Dhanuskodia1 on the licensing provisions for driving a motor vehicle. Mr. Venkatachala next urged that even according to the observations of Govinda Menon, J., it is only when the licence has done all that he need do for getting renewal of licence and is under a bona fide belief that his licence could be renewed, he can continue the business or activity in anticipation of renewal of the licence. Mr. Venkatachala contended that in the present case the accused had not paid the licence-fee until|after P.W.1, the Health Inspector, checked the licence and that the accused cannot be said to have been under a bona fide belief that his licence would be renewed, when he failed to comply with the demand of the Municipality to pay a compounding fee along with the licence fee. According to Mr. According to Mr. Venkatachala, even if the demand for the compounding fee by the Municipality was erroneous, the accused could not be said to have entertained any bona fide belief that his licence would be renewed. I think there is good deal of for;e in this contention. To determine whether the accused had done all that he was required to do, to get the licence renewed and whether he was under a bona fide belief that his licence would be renewed, it is necessary to ascertain whether the accused had paid the licence fee either along with the application or within a reasonable time after he sent the application. If he had paid the licence fee within time, it may be possible for him to contend that he had done all that was expected of him, that the demand of the compounding fee by the Municipality was unwarranted and that he was under a bona fide belief that the Municipal Authorities would give up their claim for compounding fee and renew the licence. As stated earlier, the case of the complainant is that the accused did not send the cheque along with his application, while the accused has all along been asserting that he sent the cheque along with his application for renewal of the licence. The learned Magistrate should have recorded a clear finding on this disputed question, namely, whether the accused had sent the cheque towards the licence fee as contended by him. Unfortunately, the learned Magistrate has not done so, but has proceeded on the basis that even if the cheque was sent by the accused, sending a cheque would not constitute legal tender of the licence fee. It was not the case of the Municipality itself that the licence fee could not be paid by means of a cheque and that the licence fee had to be paid only in cash or by depositing money in the Treasury or in the Bank. In the endorsement (Exhibit P-2) issued by the Municipality, it was not stated that payments would not be received by the Municipality in the form of cheques. As the case has been tried summarily, it is not possible for me at this stage to scrutinise the evidence and record a finding whether the case put forward by the accused that he sent the cheque along with the application, is true or not. As the case has been tried summarily, it is not possible for me at this stage to scrutinise the evidence and record a finding whether the case put forward by the accused that he sent the cheque along with the application, is true or not. In the absence of the necessary finding by the Magistrate, on this question, his judgment convicting the accused should be set aside. But the offence complained of is not of such gravity as to justify a direction for retrial. Before concluding, I must point out that the Bye-laws framed by the respondent-Municipality regarding the issue of licence, are vague and silent on many material matters. These Bye-laws do not specifically provide whether the fee for renewal of licence should be paid along with the application or after the application is sent; in what mode the fee for renewal of the licences should be paid; and whether payment of such fee by means of cheques is permissible. A citizen who applies for a fresh licence or renwal of the licence, should not be put to uncertainty and needless controversy with the authorities on these questions. In the absence of any provision in the Mysore City Municipalities Act, 1933, corresponding to section 385(10) of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, the Municipality may consider whether it is not desirable that the Bye-laws themselves should expressly provide that a person who held a licence and had made an application for its renewal according to law, shall, until communication of orders on his application, be entitled to act as if the licence had been renewed. In the result, this revision petition is allowed and the conviction of the petitioner and sentence passed against him by the learned Magistrate, are hereby set aside. If the petitioner had paid the fine, he is entitled to the refund of the same. S.V.S ----- Petition allowed.