Judgment :- 1. Petitioner is running his business of bakery in the premises situated at No: 682, C.T.H. Road, Pattabiram, Chennai, for the past 20 years. Petitioner has been paying the requisite license fees to the respondent municipality without any default. As the respondent has refused to accept the license fees and renew the license for the bakery citing a complaint filed under the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on 25.03.2011, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition seeking renewal of license. 2. The case of the petitioner is that his neighbour one Mr.K.Srinivasan was operating a saw mill adjacent to his bakery and he along with other residents of the area petitioned the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board which resulted in the closure of the saw mill being run by the said Srinivasan. Aggrieved over the said act, a complaint came to be lodged against this petitioner stating that he sold spoiled and fungus-infected bread and that he was running the bakery without obtaining proper license from the Municipality. According to the petitioner, the alleged complaint is only a counter blast to his complaint lodged against his neighbour and, therefore, the present impugned notice refusing to renew the license is unsustainable in law. 3. Mr. T. Mohan learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in his submissions would consistently contend that the petitioner is running the bakery for the past 20 years without any interruption and without any complaint and all of a sudden, the respondent had taken a stand not to consider his application for renewal of licence stating that a criminal complaint is pending. Learned counsel, relying on Section 107-B of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939, submits that the Executive Authority on receiving an application for a licence or for the renewal of a licence may refuse to grant a licence or to renew a licence if he is satisfied that the building, mobile van, vehicle or place is not suitable for the purpose mentioned in the application or does not satisfy the minimum requirements as regards sanitation. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, when the Act clearly contemplates that renewal of licence can be refused only when the applicant does not satisfy the minimum requirement as regards sanitation, there is no power to the authority to refuse the renewal of license on the ground that a criminal case is pending. Mr. T. Mohan would also add that the petitioner is adjudicating the criminal complaint in the manner known to law. 4. On the other hand, Mr. P. Srinivas learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that there was a notice calling upon the petitioner to rectify the defects found during the inspection by the competent officer and those defects were not rectified. He would also contend that the application submitted by the petitioner was not made in an appropriate form as prescribed under the Act. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials made available on record. 6. A circumspection of the facts reveal that the petitioner is running the bakery under the name of Sairam Bakery for the past 20 years and there is no single instance of any complaint being lodged by the public about the quality of the products manufactured and sold by the petitioner in his bakery. However, the officers of the respondent, in the interest of the public, on inspection, issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to rectify certain defects and comply with the standard prescribed. It is seen that the petitioner has rectified the defects pointed out and now the matter is pending with the respondent Municipality for consideration. While so, the respondent has passed the impugned order stating that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner and, therefore, his request for renewal of license could not be considered. So saying, petitioner's application for renewal of license is returned. 7. While so, the respondent has passed the impugned order stating that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner and, therefore, his request for renewal of license could not be considered. So saying, petitioner's application for renewal of license is returned. 7. Section 107 - B of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act reads as under : "107-B. Issue of licence – (1) The executive authority on receiving from any person an application for a licence or for the renewal of a licence for keeping in any building, mobile van vehicle or place, any eating, drinking or catering establishment, hotel, tea-shop, coffee-house, cafe, restaurant, refresment room, mobile canteen, itinerant stall or any place or vehicle where food is sold or prepared or stored for sale or to which the public are admitted for the consumption of any food and on payment by him of such fee, if any, as may be prescribed for the purpose shall grant a licence or renew a licence, as the case may be, in respect of the building, mobile van, vehicle or place named in the application. Provided that the executive authority shall not grant a licence or renew a licence until the Health Officer or any person duly authorized by him has inspected the building, mobile van, vehicle or place named in the application and has recommended such licence or renewal of licence : Provided further that the executive authority may refuse to grant a licence or to renew a licence if he is satisfied that the building, mobile van, vehicle or place is not suitable for the purpose mentioned in the application or does not satisfy the minimum requirements as regards sanitation. " 8. In the case on hand, there was a notice issued under Section 44 of the Act asking the petitioner to rectify the defects pointed out by the officials of the respondents. By his letter dated 06.04.2011, the petitioner has informed the respondent that he has complied with the defects pointed out by the respondent. While that being so, the respondent has returned the petitioner's application on the ground that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner and therefore, his application cannot be considered. By his letter dated 06.04.2011, the petitioner has informed the respondent that he has complied with the defects pointed out by the respondent. While that being so, the respondent has returned the petitioner's application on the ground that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner and therefore, his application cannot be considered. The Executive authority is empowered to consider any application for issuance of licence only under the relevant provision of law and apply his mind as to under what circumstances and for what requirement, the application could be considered and the license can be issued to the applicant. The provision makes it very clear that once the application has been made in the prescribed format and in the manner as required, it is obligatory on the part of the executive authority to consider the same. On the contrary it is not for them to consider anything beyond the scope of the provision. Even if there is a criminal case pending against the petitioner, it is for the petitioner and the respondent to contest the matter in the manner known to law. The outcome of such a contest and the decision taken thereon will be taken into consideration at an appropriate time. As the provision is very clear and when the application of the petitioner has to be considered in the manner as prescribed, it is not for the respondent to say some other reason for rejecting and returning the application. Therefore, the impugned rejection of the respondent cannot be sustained and accordingly, the same is set aside. The contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent includes that the application should be made in the prescribed format after satisfying all the requirements pointed out by the authority in its notice. It is for the petitioner to take all steps to see that his application is made in the proper format, after complying with the requirements pointed out by the respondent officials. On such satisfaction of the requirements by the petitioner, the respondent is directed to consider petitioner's application afresh and pass orders thereon within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid directions. There shall be no orders as to the costs.