Judgment : N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. 1. W.A. No.369 of 2004 is filed against the order made in W.P. No.18698 of 2003 dated 110. 2003, wherein the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent. 2. W.A. No.1072 of 2004 is filed against the order in W.P. No.16598 of 2003 dated 110. 2003, wherein the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition following the order made in W.P. No.18698 of 2003. 3. The first respondents in the Writ Appeals applied for licence for locating mutton stall and chicken stall respectively and the said Application was rejected by the appellant on various grounds. 4. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the Writ Appeal in W.A. No.369 of 2004 are as follows. .(a) The first respondent passed M.A. degree and to eke out his livelihood, he decided to get self-employed by establishing a mutton stall with modern amenities in clean and hygenic condition in Sathyamangalam town, which has got population of about 50,000 and 27 wards. He appointed a veterinary doctor to suggest the ways and means for running the mutton stall in hygenic manner. He has also arranged to dispose of the waste materials by making his own arrangements, without letting it to drainage or by throwing away on the street. The first respondent also intended to deal with live fish, for which a pond has been constructed by him to keep the fish in live manner. He is also having poultry of his own, apart from other birds for marketing. .(b) It is stated in the affidavit that there are 15 mutton stalls and fish trading centres within the municipality of Sathyamangalam and all of them are situated adjacent to the compound wall of girls high school, wherein several shops are situated and it is a thickly populated area, located nearer to temple and Government Offices. The first respondent applied for licence before the appellant on 16. 2002 under Section 269 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. Since there was no response, another Application was submitted on 27. 2002, which was also not considered and finally on 18. 2002, the said Application was rejected without even stating anything about the First Application dated 16. 2002. (c) The reason stated in the said order was that the proposed shop of the first respondent is situated in a residential area. 2002, which was also not considered and finally on 18. 2002, the said Application was rejected without even stating anything about the First Application dated 16. 2002. (c) The reason stated in the said order was that the proposed shop of the first respondent is situated in a residential area. The said reason having been erroneous reason, as several other persons were given licence to locate similar type of shops in residential area, the first respondent challenged the same before this Court in W.P. No.35300 of 2002 and this Court by order dated 19. 2002 permitted the first respondent to give fresh Application and the appellant was directed to take action in the matter. As directed by this Court, petitioner filed a fresh Application on 10. 2002 for issuing licence to have a mutton stall. The same was rejected on 110. 2002 on the ground that the request having been made to deal with mutton, fish and poultry, it is to be treated as market. Petitioner challenged the said order in W.P. No.41657 of 2002 before this Court and at the time of argument it was pointed out that the petitioner is to challenge the resolution of the municipality objecting permission to any person for locating any mutton stall in any private building and regulating the said trade only in the municipal market. .(d) The said resolution was also challenged by the first respondent in W.P. No.1414 of 2003 and by order dated 24. 2003 this Court set aside the same as it is unreasonable restriction on trade. This Court further directed the first respondent to prefer a fresh Application, pursuant to which on 5. 2003 another Application was submitted followed by a detailed representation dated 15. 2003 wherein the first respondent clearly indicated that he will maintain the mutton stall in a clean and healthy manner and also enclosed consent from the general public. Thereafter the first respondent received an order dated 6. 2003 rejecting the request on other grounds, which were not stated in the earlier rejection order. The said order was challenged by the first respondent in W.P. No.18698 of 2003. 5. The appellant-Municipality filed counter affidavit in the Writ Petition and contended that the public in the locality objected for issuing licence and there is lot of pollution in and around petitioner’s premises and river Bhavani nearby. The said order was challenged by the first respondent in W.P. No.18698 of 2003. 5. The appellant-Municipality filed counter affidavit in the Writ Petition and contended that the public in the locality objected for issuing licence and there is lot of pollution in and around petitioner’s premises and river Bhavani nearby. The first respondent was charge sheeted under Sections 262 and 269 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, and the cases are pending in S.T.C. Nos.944/2002 and 1111/2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sathyamangalam. It is also stated that for conducting mutton stall, chicken stall and fish stall, separate licences have to be obtained. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that no licence is granted to individuals for running mutton/chicken/fish stall within the area of operation sought for by the first respondent and 15 mutton/chicken/fish stalls are granted licences in public auction to the successful bidders every year for the past about 30 years. The appellant municipality is getting revenue to the tune of Rs.15.00 lakhs and using the above revenue for the betterment of the inhabitants of the area. The first respondent is attempting to run a parallel private market by getting a single licence on payment of Rs.250/-and if it is granted, it will deprive the revenue of the municipality. The allegation of mala fide is also denied. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the Rajiv Nagar, where the first respondent applied for licence to have a mutton stall, is thickly populated residential area and it will cause health hazards. A resolution was passed by the Municipality on 210. 2002 to close the trade in the residential area on hygenic ground and the Municipal Resolution No.1212 dated 30.1.2001 has not been quashed by this Court, which prohibits permitting to have chicken/mutton/fish stalls in private places. The impugned order in the Writ Petition was passed on the recommendation of the Sanitary Officer and therefore the appellant prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. Various other factual averments were also denied in the counter affidavit. 6. The learned Single Judge considering the matter in issue and having regard to the earlier orders passed, allowed the Writ Petition by order dated 110. Various other factual averments were also denied in the counter affidavit. 6. The learned Single Judge considering the matter in issue and having regard to the earlier orders passed, allowed the Writ Petition by order dated 110. 2003 and gave a positive direction to the appellant-Municipality to issue licence as requested by the first respondent with restrictions to safeguard the health hazards and to maintain the hygenic conditions. Aggrieved by the said order, this Writ Appeal is filed. 7. Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants argued that the municipality acted within its powers and only to maintain public health, the request of the first respondent was rejected and the permission granted to other individuals are for other areas and not located in residential areas that too by public auction and the order of the learned Judge is without reference to Section 269(2) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, which empowers the executive authority to grant or refuse licence after inspection and also the order of the learned Judge is in violation of Section 107-B of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939, wherein it is stated that the Executive Authority shall not grant a licence until a Health Officer or any person duly authorised by him recommended to issue such licence. Ultimately the learned Senior Counsel submitted that in any event, the issuance of positive direction to grant licence to the first respondent by the learned Single Judge is unsustainable. 8. Mr. AL. Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent was forced to approach this Court several times and on each occasion, different reasons were stated to reject the request of the first respondent seeking licence and taking note of the earlier orders of this Court and the attitude of the appellant the learned Judge was justified in issuing positive direction. 9. We have perused the earlier orders of this Court, the earlier orders passed by the appellant and also the order of the learned Single Judge and considered the arguments submitted by either side. 10. In the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent in W.P. No.35300 of 2002 dated 19. 9. We have perused the earlier orders of this Court, the earlier orders passed by the appellant and also the order of the learned Single Judge and considered the arguments submitted by either side. 10. In the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent in W.P. No.35300 of 2002 dated 19. 2002, a simple direction was issued to consider and dispose of first respondent’s Application and if the Application was not in conformity with the statutory provisions, the same shall not be ignored and the appellant was directed to take action in accordance with law and orders were directed to be passed according to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. On 10. 2002, the first responde nt gave a representation which was rejected on 110. 2002 and directed the first respondent to stop the business. The said order was challenged by the first respondent in W.P. No.41657 of 2002 and the learned Single Judge considered the order passed by the appellant on 110. 2002 and taking note of the resolution passed by the appellant not to permit any mutton stalls in private premises and also request made by the first respondent to question the validity of the resolution permitted the first respondent to take separate proceedings after getting copy of the resolution from the appellant. Thereafter, the first respondent challenged the resolution dated 30.1.2001 in W.P. No.1414 of 2003, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge in the following terms, “6. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of with an observation that if fresh Application would be filed by the petitioner clarifying the objections raised by the respondents regarding the possible health hazard and impediment to be caused to the traffic and the permissibility of having a shop in a residential area, such Application may be considered in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such Application. It is made clear that no opinion has been expressed on these aspects. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.” From the above order it is clear that if fresh Application is filed by the first respondent clarifying the objections raised by the appellant, the same was directed to be considered in accordance with law. 11. Again the first respondent’s request was rejected by order dated 6. 2003. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.” From the above order it is clear that if fresh Application is filed by the first respondent clarifying the objections raised by the appellant, the same was directed to be considered in accordance with law. 11. Again the first respondent’s request was rejected by order dated 6. 2003. The said order was impugned in the Writ Petition, against which this Writ Appeal is preferred. The learned Single Judge, taking note of the approach of the appellants and having regard to the fact that the first respondent approached this Court four times to get redressal and taking note of the different reasons stated in different orders by the appellant for rejection of the request, made observations in paragraph 9 onwards in his order. The three reasons given by the appellant in the impugned order dated 6. 2003 are that (1) The licence is sought for to establish the mutton/chicken stall in the residential area; (2) The same cannot be established near the hospital; and (3) There is possibility of mixing of waste drains from the shop with the Bhavani river. 12. Though the impugned order is passed stating the above said reasons, in the counter affidavit it is stated that if the licence is given, there is possibility of losing income by the Municipality. The said reason is unsustainable in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.1414 of 2003 dated 24. 2003, wherein the said objection was specifically rejected. The said objection having been rejected in the order dated 24. 2003, the appellant is not justified in raising the very same objection to substantiate the rejection order. The learned Single Judge, taking note of Section 269 of the District Municipalities Act, 1920, and Section 107-B of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939, rejected the contentions raised by the appellant. 13. Insofar as the objection that the mutton shop cannot be established near the hospital, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent pointed out the certificate given by the nearby hospital, viz. , Vijaya Hospital, Rajiv Nagar, Sathyamangalam, dated 27. 2003, which reads as follows: To Whomsoever It May Concern “This is to certify that FRIENDS MEAT STALL situated at Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Near Vijaya Hospital, Sathy is in good Hygenic situation. Worker-use things with gloves in Hygenic ways. , Vijaya Hospital, Rajiv Nagar, Sathyamangalam, dated 27. 2003, which reads as follows: To Whomsoever It May Concern “This is to certify that FRIENDS MEAT STALL situated at Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Near Vijaya Hospital, Sathy is in good Hygenic situation. Worker-use things with gloves in Hygenic ways. Solid waste and Percolating liquid waste are dealt as it should be. Mostly the waste are carried over either in Auto or by Municipal Vehicle for disposal in Municipal waste ground. Bird waste carried to this land for manure purpose. Rest of usual general hygenic are being followed. It is not in any way damaging to society.” In view the availability of the said certificate issued by the nearby hospital, the second ground for rejection is unsustainable. 14. With regard to the third reason stated that there is possibility of mixing of waste drains in the shop with the Bhavani river, that was not the reason stated in the earlier proceedings and even if there is such a possibility restrictions could be imposed stipulating conditions to maintain hygenic atmosphere and giving direction to prevent mixing of waste drains from the shop with Bhavani river. Section 269 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act empowers the appellant to impose such conditions as it deems fit, while granting licence. Thus, the learned Judge factually found that the appellant is not considering the first respondent’s Application with open mind and in accordance with law and on the basis of the directions issued by this Court, but is acting with a view to reject the said application and therefore the first respondent is entitled to get licence though with restrictions as contemplated under the Act. Taking note of the unreasonable attitude of the appellant and the inconsistent stand taken, the learned Judge exercised his discretion to issue a positive direction in an exceptional manner that too with a direction to issue licence with restrictions to safeguard the health hazards and to maintain hygenic conditions. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and also in the directions issued. 15. The learned Judge is justified in issuing a positive direction on the facts and circumstances of the case and we are in entire agreement with the order of the learned Single Judge. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and also in the directions issued. 15. The learned Judge is justified in issuing a positive direction on the facts and circumstances of the case and we are in entire agreement with the order of the learned Single Judge. It is made clear that it is open to the appellant to impose such other conditions as are required to maintain hygenic atmosphere to prevent the first respondent from mixing the waste drains from the shop with the Bhavani river. 16. W.A. No.369 of 2004 is dismissed with the above observations. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. 17. The learned Single Judge in the order in W.P. No.16598 of 2003, simply followed the order in W.P. No.18698 of 2003 dated 110. 2003. Since we confirm the said order, we see no merits in W.A. No.1072 of 2004 as well and therefore this Writ Appeal is also dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. 18. The appellant, is directed to comply with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.