JUDGMENT - Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.:---The present appeal arises out of an order dated 12th July, 1995 of City Civil Court rejecting a Notice of Motion preferred by the appellant. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant states that subsequent thereto on 3rd July, 2000 the suit was dismissed for default. A Notice of Motion has been filed by the appellant in the trial Court for the restoration of the suit. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, the order of dismissal for default is set aside and the suit is hereby restored to the file of the trial Court. 2. The appellant carries on the business of Stone Crushing at 48, Amboli Hills, Veera Desai Road, Amboli Hill, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400 058. It has been averred in the plaint that in 1983 a licence had been granted to the appellant for installing a Stone Crushing unit at the site. Copies of the relevant documents in this regard are annexed at pages 53, 54, 56 and 58 of the paper book. The papers at pages 53 and 54 are file notes of the Municipal Corporation while those at pages 56 and 58 are copies of the communications issued to the appellant by the Senior Ward Officer, 'K' West Ward and by the Deputy City Engineer, (Civil) Environmental Sanitation and Project of the Municipal Corporation. It appears that in 1988 certain complaints were received by the Municipal Corporation in regard to the environmental pollution which was generated as a result of the operation of the Stone Crushing unit by the appellant. In its reply before the trial Court, the Municipal Corporation adverted to the fact that a Task Force was appointed to study the level of pollution and the appellant was asked to take measures to minimise the dust pollution. In 1989, the appellant gave an undertaking to carry out and implement measures to minimise dust pollution. According to the Municipal Corporation, the licence was not renewed after the 1st April, 1990. Be that as it may, on 5th March, 1991 a communication was addressed by the appellant to the Ward Officer, 'K' West Ward in which it has been stated that the appellant had been found to carry on the activity of Stone Crushing without a valid licence under section 394 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. Be that as it may, on 5th March, 1991 a communication was addressed by the appellant to the Ward Officer, 'K' West Ward in which it has been stated that the appellant had been found to carry on the activity of Stone Crushing without a valid licence under section 394 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The communication sets out the satisfaction of the competent authority that the activity of carrying on the trade of stone crushing was dangerous to life, health and property and was likely to create a nuisance within the meaning of Clauses (d) and (e) of sub-section (1) of section 394 of the B.M.C. Act, 1888. A notice was therefore given to the appellant to discontinue the aforesaid trade and activity within a period of 48 hours failing which, it was stated, that the Municipal Corporation would resort to coercive measures. 3. The appellant instituted a suit in the City Civil Court challenging the notice which was issued by the Municipal Corporation. From the impugned order of the trial Court, it is clear that at the ad-interim stage, the learned trial Judge granted the relief to the appellant subject to various conditions. The appellant was required by the conditions of the ad-interim order passed by the trial Court to install a sprinkler system of a certain kind forthwith. In para 12 of its impugned order, the trial Court recorded the submission of the Municipal Corporation that no such sprinkle system was installed by the appellant though the appellant addressed a letter to the Senior Inspector of the Licence Department on 19th June, 1995 contending that the sprinkler system was available at the site but it had been given out for repairs. The trial Court has also recorded that absolutely no material was produced by the appellant to establish that the earlier ad-interim order dated 4th April, 1991 was duly complied with. In the circumstances, the trial Court has held that the appellant had failed to carry out the requisite measures to reduce or minimise dust pollution despite the undertaking which had been furnished to the Municipal Corporation. Moreover, the appellant had also failed to comply with the obligation which had been cast upon it by the ad-interim order dated 4th April, 1991 of installing a sprinkler system. Moreover, the appellant had also failed to comply with the obligation which had been cast upon it by the ad-interim order dated 4th April, 1991 of installing a sprinkler system. In these circumstances a prima facie case was held not to have been made out and the Notice of Motion was rejected. 4. When this appeal came up for hearing, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant made a statement. On seeking instructions from the appellant who is present in the Court, that the appellant continued to carry on the Stone Crushing business without a licence. This, in my view, discloses a sorry state of affairs because despite the absence of any licence having been granted to the appellant under section 394 of the Act, the appellant continued his activities unabated. 5. Section 390 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 provides in sub-section (1) that no person shall newly establish in any premises any factory, workshop or work place in which steam, water, electrical or other mechanical power is to be employed, without the previous written permission of the Municipal Commissioner. By Sub-section (2), the Commissioner is empowered to refuse such permission if he is of the opinion that any such activity is objectionable by reason of the density of the population in the neighbourhood or if it would be a source of nuisance to the inhabitants of the neighbourhood. Moreover, by sub-section (3) it has been provided that if any written permission which has been granted is revoked, no person shall continue or resume the work unless the permission is renewed or a fresh written permission is granted. Section 392 provides that whenever it shall appear to the Municipal Commissioner that any factory, workshop or work place or any building or place in which steam, water or other mechanical power is employed, is not kept in a clean state or is not ventilated in such a manner as to render harmless as far as practicable, any gas, vapour, dust or other impurity generated in the course of the work carried on therein which is a nuisance, the Commissioner may, by written notice, require, the owner of such factory, workshop or workplace, to take necessary steps for avoiding danger to life or the nuisance, as the case may be. Section 394 requires the holding of a valid licence before a person can carry on certain trades. Section 394 requires the holding of a valid licence before a person can carry on certain trades. Under Clause (3) of sub-section (1) a licence is required in respect of the trades which are specified in Part IV of Schedule "M", or any trade, process or operation which, in the opinion of the Commissioner, is dangerous to life, health or property or is likely to create a nuisance either from its nature or by reason of the manner in which it is proposed to be carried on. Stone grinding, cutting, dressing or polishing is referred to as one of the trades in Part IV of Schedule "M". 6. There are thus sufficient powers conferred by sufficient legislation on the subject. What is wanting in the present context is due implementation to subserve the underlying purpose and object. In the present case, it is apparent that the appellant carried on his activities without a licence. In my view, this is a clear breach of the statutory provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. Under Clause (ab) of section 61 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 the protection of the environment is the obligatory duty of the Municipal Corporation. Similarly, it is the obligation of the Municipal Corporation in Clause (d) of section 61 to ensure the abatement of all nuisances. Clause (j) similarly makes it obligatory for the Corporation to deal with offensive and dangerous trades. These statutory provisions have to be implemented by the Municipal Corporation in order to ensure the interests of the residents of the city. Unfortunately cases such as the present emphasise the significant lacunae in the administration of the provisions of the Act as a result of which noxious and dangerous trades continue unabated to the detriment of the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the city. 7. In so far as the present case is concerned, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, on seeking instructions from Mr. 7. In so far as the present case is concerned, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, on seeking instructions from Mr. K.Y. Dhotre, who is the proprietor of the appellant states that (i) the appellant shall forthwith apply to the Municipal Corporation for the grant of a licence under section 394 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, (ii) in the event of the Municipal Corporation imposing any conditions upon the appellant in regard to the safe guards required to be adopted for carrying on the Stone Crushing unit, he will duly abide by the conditions which the Municipal Corporation may impose and (iii) the appellant shall not carry on any business either of Stone Crushing or otherwise save and except upon the grant of licence by the Municipal Corporation and subject to the terms and conditions of a valid licence. It would be open to the appellant to approach the B.M.C. in the form of an application for the grant of a license upon which the Municipal Corporation shall take a necessary decision in accordance with law. In that view of the matter, the appeal from order is liable to be disposed of. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant states that the appellant shall apply to the trial Court for withdrawal of the suit which has been filed and that the appellant shall take necessary steps for obtaining the formal directions from the City Civil Court. It would be open to the Municipal Corporation to take all necessary steps to ensure that the statement which is made on behalf of the appellant is duly complied with and that the appellant does not carry on any business in the absence of a valid licence issued by the Municipal Corporation. The concerned authorities of the Municipal Corporation are directed to take action forthwith in order to ensure that the business of Stone Crushing is not carried out without a valid licence. The appeal from order is accordingly disposed of. Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Personal Secretary may be made available to the parties. Order accordingly. -----