Judgment.- This appeal by Special Leave is filed by the Anjarakandy Panchayat Board against the decision of the Second Class Magistrate, Cannanore, in C.C. No. 108 of 1960 acquitting the accused who was prosecuted under section 115 read with section 91 of the Madras Village Panchayat Act, 1950. The accused is a tea shop keeper who admittedly had not taken out a licence for conducting his business for the year 1959-60. The Panchayat had classified this hotel under Category No. 1 based on the turn-over of his business and demanded a licence fee of Rs. 10. Exhibit P-3 is the notice of demand. The accused presented a petition stating that his hotel would not come under Class I, but should be classified only under the 2nd category and that he is liable to pay a licence fee of only Rs. 5. Thereupon the President of the Panchayat Board issued notice to the accused calling upon him to appear for personal hearing. The accused, however, did not appear or adduce any evidence in support of his plea. His petition was dismissed and Exhibit P-6 is the order. In spite of this he did not pay the licence fee, but continued to run the tea shop. The Panchayat Board therefore prosecuted the accused for conducting the business without taking out a licence, as required under the notification issued under section 91 of the Act. There is no dispute that the trade was carried on without a licence and that he had not paid the licence fee even on the basis of his calculation. Section 91 says that no place within the limits of the village shall be used for any of the purposes specified in the Rules without a licence issued by the Executive Authority. So whoever uses his place for a prohibited trade without a license contravenes the provisions of the Act and is guilty. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution had failed to justify the order classifying the hotel of the accused as Class I and demanding Rs. 10. The learned Magistrate thought that the hotel run by the accused was classified under Class I due to extraneous and irrelevant considerations. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution had failed to justify the order classifying the hotel of the accused as Class I and demanding Rs. 10. The learned Magistrate thought that the hotel run by the accused was classified under Class I due to extraneous and irrelevant considerations. It is well settled that in a case where a person is prosecuted for carrying on an industry or a trade for which a licence to do so has been either refused or licence has not been taken out, it is open tothe Court to find out whether the order of the statutory body was made without jurisdiction and whether on the face of it the order is illegal, unreasonable, revolting or repugnant to conscience. But where the order is in the legitimate exercise of the jurisdiction vested in the statutory body 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, the question becomes one of jurisdiction, but where the plea is that even though the licence is necessary which has been refused on the merits the plea cannot be considered as one involving jurisdiction at all. If a party feels that the order is not correct he has his remedies under the Act or it will be open to the aggrieved party to have his remedy in a civil Court or by resorting to one of the prerogative writs allowed by law if such a remedy is available, but without resorting to any of these remedies it would not be open to the accused when he is prosecuted for running the trade without a licence to contend that the order of the Executive Authority is wrong on the merits. The Court has also no authority to reduce the licence fee claimed by the Panchayat and fix its own licence fee. The order of the learned Magistrate fixing the licence fee at a lower rate according to his discretion is therefore, contrary to law. After having acquitted the accused the learned Magistrate has no light to order that the Panchayat may appropriate rupees five towards the licence fee. The order of the learned Magistrate fixing the licence fee at a lower rate according to his discretion is therefore, contrary to law. After having acquitted the accused the learned Magistrate has no light to order that the Panchayat may appropriate rupees five towards the licence fee. Section 96(6) contemplates summary recovery only when any person is convicted. The order of the learned Magistrate acquitting the accused has therefore to be set aside. The accused is found guilty of the offence he stood charged with. It is stated that after the prosecution was launched the accused had sent the licence fee of Rs 12.50 nP. as demanded by the Panchayat Board. It is, therefore, not necessary to take a serious view of the offence. The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of rupee one in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two days. Under section 96(6) there will be an order to recover summarily the licence fee of Rs. 12.50 nP. and to pay over the same to the Panchayat. As the amount sent by the accused is already with the Panchayat Board they are entitled to appropriate the same towards licence fee. M.C.M. ----- Appeal allowed.