JUDGMENT : K. Harilal, J. The petitioner is the General Manager of a textile mill by name 'Vijayamohini Mills', at Thiruvananthapuram. Now, the said Mill is a unit of National Textile Corporation Limited; but, originally, it was a public limited company. In the year 1974, the Central Government promulgated the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act 1974(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to Section 3(1) of the Act, the Central Government acquired right of owners in respect of sick textile undertakings; but, as per Section 3(2) of the Act, every sick textile undertakings, which stands vested in the Central Government, by virtue of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act shall immediately, after it has so vested, stand transferred to and vested in, the National Textile Corporation. Thus, as per Section 3(2) of the Act, the above Mill stood transferred and vested in the National Textile Corporation. 2. While so, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P1 notice to the petitioner, alleging that the Mill was being run without licence envisaged under Section 447 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Municipality Act') and invoking Sections 532(1), 511 and 545 of the Municipality Act, the petitioner was required to pay penalty and to undergo prosecution and closure of the Mill, if the licence is not taken. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is not liable to take licence from the 1st respondent Corporation, as the petitioner is exempted from taking licence under Section 442 of the Municipality Act. With this pleading, this Writ Petition has been filed with a prayer to call for all the records leading to Ext.P3 and quash the same. 3. Heard Shri P. Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri N. Nandakumara Menon, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to Section 442 of the Municipality Act and argued that the petitioner company is owned by the National Textile Corporation, which is controlled by the Government of India. Therefore, the petitioner would come within the purview of "exemption" under Section 442 of the Municipality Act. 5. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to Section 442 of the Municipality Act and argued that the petitioner company is owned by the National Textile Corporation, which is controlled by the Government of India. Therefore, the petitioner would come within the purview of "exemption" under Section 442 of the Municipality Act. 5. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Government companies and Government of India undertakings are not entitled to get exemption under Section 442 of the Municipality Act, as they are holding a distinct legal entity different from that of the Government. Their status cannot be equated with as that of the Government, even if, they are controlled by the Government. 6. In view of the rival submissions made at the Bar, the question to be considered is, whether a Government company is entitled to get exemption under Section 442 of the Municipality Act from taking licence under Section 447 of the Municipality Act. It is apposite and profitable to make a closer analysis of Section 442 of the Municipality Act, which reads as follows: "442 Exemption of Government from taking out licence. - Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to require the State Government or the Central Government to take out a licence in respect of any place in the occupation or under the control of or any property belonging to such Government." 7. The expression "Government" is not defined in the definition clause; but, it is needless to say, "Government" means Government of Kerala or Government of India, as the case may be. Coming to the operative portion of the above Section, an immunity is seen grant to any place: (1) in the occupation of or (2) under the control of or (3) any property belonging to such Government only. 8. The 'National Textile Corporation' is a corporation formed and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. According to Section 617 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, 'Government Company' means any company in which not less than fifty one percent of the paid up share capital is held by the Central Government or the State Government or Governments or partly by the Central Government and partly by one or more State Government. Thus, the Government Company is holding a different and distinct legal entity, as contemplated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Thus, the Government Company is holding a different and distinct legal entity, as contemplated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The Mill is vested in a company, in which the Central Government holds more than fifty one percent of or full paid up share capital. Can the Mill be exempted from taking licence on the reason that it is vested in a Government company, wherein the Central Government holds more than fifty one percent of or full paid up share capital? In my view, what is meant and intended under Section 442 of the Municipality Act, is any place in the direct occupation of or under the control of or belongs to the State Government or the Central Government, as the case may be, and the places in the occupation or control of the Government companies or public undertakings, or any other instrumentalities constituted under or regulated by various Central or State Enactments will not get the privilege of exemption, under this provision. In other words, the places in the occupation of or under the control of, or belongs to the public undertakings, Government Companies and Corporations constituted by various Enactments and such other similar establishments shall not be deemed to be occupied or controlled by or belonged to the Government, under Section 442 of the Municipality Act, as such, instrumentalities are having distinct legal entity different from that of Government. In short, Government Companies and Government undertakings cannot claim the privilege grant to the Government under Section 442 of the Municipality Act, as the privilege is a sovereign immunity only. 9. In the instant case, the petitioner company is vested in the National Textile Corporation. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get exemption under Section 442 of the Municipality Act. 10. However, I find that the petitioner has stayed away from taking licence on a bona fide understanding that the petitioner is not liable to take licence under Section 442 of the Municipality Act. 11. In the above view of the matter, the petitioner is allowed to apply for licence, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Coercive steps, if any, taken against the petitioner, shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month, after the receipt of this judgment. 12. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.