JUDGMENT 1. The writ petitioner has come forward with the aforesaid prayer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he has been running a pig stall for nearly four decades in front of his house at Door No.34, Anna Salai, Sathyamangalam Road, Erode District and that he was not growing any pigs in his house. According to him, the pigs are growing in a place closed by compound wall far away from the house at end of Anthiyur Town area. Hence, there is no chance of pigs coming out to the streets. According to the petitioner, he has provided water facilities to wash pigs and the pigs are used for human consumption since they are kept in hygienic atmosphere. According to the petitioner, there is no complaint by any person and he is opening the stall during weekends viz., Saturdays and Sundays and do business. He has lot of customers. The Town Panchayat has auctioned chicken stall, mutton stall and other stalls and the petitioner's pig stall which is in existence is in hygienic condition than those stalls provided by the panchayat. The case of the petitioner is that he is entitled to practice any provision or to carry out any occupation, trade or business as contemplated under Article 19 of the Constitution of India and taking away his right is violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. 3. The impugned order states that the petitioner's stall is on the way to Badrakaliamman Temple, hygienic conditions are not maintained and lot of complaints from the public and that due to rainy season, there are possibilities of dengues, brain fever and other diseases and in order to prevent the same, there should not be any stalls near Anthiyur Town Panchayat. If anyone grows pig, action would be taken and stalls should be removed and necessary charges would be collected from the person who had installed stall apart from action against the concerned person invoking penal provisions. 4. The second respondent also filed a detailed counter affidavit. In the counter, it has been stated that the petitioner has been running a pig stall in front of his house and the stall is situated in the highways within the jurisdiction of Anthiyur Town Panchayat. 4. The second respondent also filed a detailed counter affidavit. In the counter, it has been stated that the petitioner has been running a pig stall in front of his house and the stall is situated in the highways within the jurisdiction of Anthiyur Town Panchayat. The respondents also contended that the stall is situated very near to Anthiyur Badrakaliamman koil and it causes inconvenience to the persons who goes for worshiping and it also causes health hazards. Taking note of the grievances of the public and considering the same and taking note of the health point, it has been decided to remove the pig stall. The second respondent also contended that the petitioner is running the pig stall without any valid license from the concerned authority, which is contrary to the Tamilnadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. 5. In reply, the petitioner contended that he has made necessary application to the authorities concerned for getting license, unfortunately, license was not issued but the cover was returned unserved with endorsement “refused”. 6. Section 321 (11) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, is extracted hereunder: 321. General provisions regarding licences and permissions: ... ... ... (11) The acceptance by the municipal council of the pre-payment of the fee for a licence or permission or for registration shall not entitle the person making such pre-payment to the licence or permission or to registration, as the case may be, but only to refund of the fee in case of refusal of the licence or permission or of registration; but 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; and save as otherwise specially provided in this Act, if orders on an application for licence or permission or for registration are not (received by the applicant within sixty days after the receipt of the application) by the (executive authority), the application shall be deemed to have been allowed for the year or for such less period as is mentioned in the application, and subject to the law, rules, by-laws, regulations and all conditions ordinarily imposed.” 7. As per section 321 (11) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, which is extracted above, it is mandatory duty cast upon the authority either to grant or reject the request of the petitioner, which has not been done and hence, in view of the deeming provision, license is deemed to have been granted for a period of one year. Apart from that, no opportunity has been given to the petitioner to remove the pig stall. Hence, the impugned order has been passed on violation of principles of natural justice. 8. Section 338 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, is extracted hereunder: 338. Consequences of failure to obtain licences, etc., or breach of the same– If, under this Act, or any rule, by-law or regulation made under it, the licence or permission of the council or executive authority or registration in the municipal office is necessary for the doing of any act, and if such act is done without such licence or permission or registration, or in a manner inconsistent with the terms of any such licence or permission, then - (a) the executive authority may, by notice, require the person so doing such act to alter, remove, or, as far as practicable, restore to its original state the whole or any part of any property, movable or immovable, public or private, affected thereby, within a time to be specified in the notice and further, (b) if no penalty has been specially provided in this Act for so doing such act, the person so doing it shall be liable on conviction before a magistrate to a fine not exceeding fifty rupees for every such offence. 9. As per section 338 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, which is extracted above, where no licence or permission is obtained for doing business, the executive authority may, by notice, require the person so doing such act to alter or remove within a time to be specified in the notice. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the petitioner is running the shop without licence for several years and even assuming that he has applied for the licence, it is only after the impugned order was passed and, that too, for the year 2013 – 2014. The impugned order which is the subject matter of the Writ Petition is dated 07.02.2013. The impugned order which is the subject matter of the Writ Petition is dated 07.02.2013. Without licence, he is carrying on business for the subsequent accounting years. 11. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned order has not been passed with reference to non-possession of licence but on the other reason, and the contention of the respondents cannot improve the case which is there in the impugned order. He submitted that in terms of Sections 338 and 339 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, opportunity will have to be given to him before taking any action against him. He admits that he is carrying on business without any licence. He has submitted that money order has been sent but the same has been returned. The cover that was returned by the respondent was opened before this Court today and the letter dated 09.03.2013 states that he had sent Rs.125/-for getting licence for the accounting year 2013-14. So, admittedly, the petitioner was not holding any licence for the period in question. The petitioner has also relied upon the decision of this Court in S.P.Saravanan vs. The Commissioner, Sathyanmangalam Municipality and another [W.P.No.1414 of 2003, Order dated 25.04.2003] and contended that he should be permitted to continue the business till appropriate action is taken by the authorities. That is the case pertaining to licence but that is not the case on hand. Even assuming that it is a case of licence, admittedly, the petitioner has not applied for licence for the accounting year and he has applied for the subsequent accounting year, that too, after the impugned order has been passed. 12. Even though this Court feels that rearing of pigs and having stalls will cause injurious to the persons who are residing there and cause brain fever but, unfortunately, this Court is bound by the provisions of the Act, namely, Sections 321 (11) and 338 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the Writ Petition as the respondent has not passed appropriate orders in terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. 13. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the Writ Petition as the respondent has not passed appropriate orders in terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. 13. Taking note of the above facts, this court, while allowing the writ petition, quashes the impugned order dated 07.02.2013 issued by the second respondent and directs the authority concerned to take into consideration the situation prevalent as on date, issue fresh notice to the petitioner, if required and take appropriate action in accordance with law. The disposal of the writ petition will not in any way preclude the respondents from taking appropriate action against the writ petitioner as rightly contended by the respondents that the rearing pigs will definitely cause health hazard. Till a final decision or orders are passed by the authority after fresh notice to the petitioner, the petitioner shall not approach any Court praying to stall the action of authorities as rearing of pigs causes deadly Japanese Encephalitis (brain fever), swine flu, etc.,. The pig is an agent that spreads the virus from animal to humans. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.