AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.N.C. Ranga Rajan, J.—This writ petition is directed against the decision of the Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry suspending the sanction of Plumber licences u/s 6 of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1982 (Act 6 of 1982).
Rajahmundry was originally only a Municipality and under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, petitioners had been given licences to work as Plumbers. On 16-4-1993 their applications for renewal of the licences were rejected and they filed Writ Petition No. 7321/1993 and by an interim direction their licences were renewed for some time. Thereafter, on 25-3-1995, Rajahmundry was declared as larger urban area u/s 3 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1994 by G.O.Ms. No. 159, with the result that it became a Corporation. Consequently, on 1-2-1996, Writ Petition No. 7321/1993 was disposed of as infructuous but a direction was given to the Corporation to consider their applications if filed afresh. Initially, when the petitioners applied, they were granted licences on 28-6-1996. Thereafter, the impugned endorsement was made stating that their licenses were suspended. Hence, this writ petition.
The contention of the petitioners is that the impugned order is untenable and the 1st respondent cannot suspend the licenses granted and in any case such suspension without affording opportunity to the petitioners was illegal. The learned Counsel for the petitioners took me through the legislative history and submitted that if the correct legal position is taken into account, the Corporation has the power and duty to grant licenses.
On the other hand, in the counter affidavit, it is submitted that Section 618 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 which deals with the grant of licenses has been modified by Act 6 of 1982 to omit the word ''Plumber'' and therefore, the question of granting licenses to the Plumbers does not arise. It is also stated that there were complaints from the public about the performance of the Plumbers, and therefore, the word ''Plumber'' was deleted from the Section 618 of the Act. In reply, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that this justification is being given for the first time in the counter affidavit whereas the stated fact was the power to give licenses was transferred from the Corporation to the Water Supply and Sewerage Board wherever they were constituted.
In order to appreciate the contentions of both sides, we have to go through the legislative history. The Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 contains Chapter XVIII for licensing of Surveyors and Plumbers. Section 618 in that Chapter originally stood as follows:
"Section 618: Grant of licenses to Surveyors and Plumbers:-
(1) The Commissioner may grant to any person he thinks fit a licence to act as a Surveyor or as plumber for the purposes of this Act. Each such licence shall be for a renewable period of one year.
(2) .....................
(3) If the Commissioner refuses any application for a licence under this section he shall, at the request of the applicant, furnish such applicant with his reasons, for such refusal, in writing under his signature, without charge."
While so, the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1982 (Act 6 of 1982) was promulgated in order to set up a Water Supply and Sewerage Board. Section 57 of that Act provided that no person other than a Plumber licensed by the Board shall execute any work described in the said Chapter "Work to be done by licensed Plumber" and no person shall permit any work to be executed except by a licensed plumber. Consequently, Section 127 of the A.P. Act 6 of 1982 stated that the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act will be read as modified by the provision of that section. Item 9 of Sub-section of which stated that the words "or as plumber" in Section 618 (1) shall be omitted. Reading the two enactments together, the altered position under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 was that water works were taken over by the Water Supply and Sewerage Board with the corresponding power to licence the Plumbers and consequently the power of the Corporation to grant licences to the plumbers was omitted by the result was that the plumbers could still be licenced though not by the Corporation but by the Water Supply and Sewerage Board. On 21-7-1983, an Ordinance 13 of 1983 namely Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage (repeal) Ordinance of 1983 was promulgated by which Act 6 of 1982 was repealed. The intention was to replace Act 6 of 1982 by another Act and to effectuate this intention, L.A. Bill No. 23/84 was introduced on 17-4-1984 but it so happened that the Legislative Assembly was dissolved and hence the said Bill lapsed. Thereafter, a new Act namely, Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1989 (A.P. Act 15 of 1989) was enacted to constitute a new Water Supply and Sewerage Board but in that Act there is no provision corresponding to Section 127 of the repealed A.P. Act 6 of 1982. Significantly, there is also no section repealing Act 6 of 1982. But there is a provision namely 2(i) (g) defining licenced engineer or plumber and Section 50 providing for regulations for licensing of plumbers and for compulsory employment of licensed plumbers.
The question that arises is whether in 1983 when the repealed Ordinance was promulgated and the earlier Act 6 of 1982 was repealed and the said Ordinance lapsed by reason of the dissolution of the Assembly, Section 618 was revived i.e., whether the words for as plumber'' was revived in Section 618 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. The second question is whether after the enactment of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1989, the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation still had the power to grant licenses to the Plumbers.
As far as the first question is concerned, we have the decision of the Supreme Court in T. Venkata Reddy and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, . which states that when an Ordinance is promulgated it takes effect immediately and accomplished facts are irreversible except by express legislation and cannot be reversed only by reason of the fact that the Ordinance lapsed thereafter. Applying this principle to the facts of this case, we have to conclude that when the Ordinance was made repealing Act 6 of 1982, Section 618 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act would no longer stand modified by omission of the words "or as plumber'' because such modification was required only as long as there is a corresponding provision in the Act 6 of 1982. This stand to reason because as we have seen before, the power and the necessity to grant licences to the plumbers was shifted to the Water Supply and Sewerage Board by the enactment of the Act 6 of 1982 and once that Act is repealed both the power and the necessity reverted back to the Corporation. Until a new Water Supply and Sewerage Board is constituted, granting the power and the necessity to license plumbers to that Board, there cannot be a lacuna with reference to power and necessity to licence plumbers with regard to the water works in the Corporation. This view of mine, that the provisions of Section 127 of the Act 6 of 1982 stood repealed is strengthened by the fact that the subsequent Act 15 of 1989 does not contain any specific section repealing the Act 6 of 1982 which indicates that the Legislature itself understood that the Act 6 of 1982 stood repealed by the Ordinance and was not revived by the lapse of the Ordinance so as to require a fresh repeal.
The second stage comes when a new Water Supply and Sewerage Board is constituted by the Act 15 of 1989. This Act enables the Board to make regulations for licensing plumbers and for compulsory employment of licensed plumbers. But this Act does not contain any provision for modifying the Section 618 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. It cannot be said that merely because the power and necessity to grant licences to the plumbers is given to the Water Supply and Sewerage Board, such power cannot be exercised by the Corporation. May be as long as the Board regulates the licensing of plumbers, there is no need for the Corporation to exercise that power, but wherever there is no Board, the power of the Corporation will remain. In my opinion, this is a situation that obtained in 1989 after the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1989 was enacted, and the power and need of the Corporation to license plumbers was suspended by necessary implication only in areas where Water Supply and Sewerage Boards were established to carry out that function.
We now come to the point of time when Rajahmundry which was a Municipality was constituted as a Corporation on 25-3-1995. This was done u/s 3 of the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 which provides that where a specified area is notified as larger urban area, a Corporation shall be deemed to have been constituted for such area. This Act further provides u/s 13 that upon such constitution, the A.P. Municipalities, Act, 1965 will cease to apply to that area but under Sub-section (3), notwithstanding such Cesser, all Rules and Bye-laws issued under the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 then in force, so far as they are not inconsistent with the Corporation Act, will continue to be in force. Section 14 provides that from the date of the notification of the larger urban area, the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act II of 1956 shall apply. Sub-section (3) provides as follows :
"Section 14: Application of the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (Act II of 1956):-
(1)..........
(2)..........
(3) Notwithstanding that no provision or insufficient provision has been made under Sub-section (2) for the adaptation of the provisions of the said Act, or the rules made thereunder, any Court, Tribunal or Authority required or empowered to enforce these provisions may, for the purpose of facilitating their application to the Corporation, construe these provisions in such manner, without affecting the substance, as may necessary or proper regard to the matter before the Court, Tribunal or Authority."
The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if it is to be held that the words "or as Plumber" in the Section 618 were not revived because of the lapse of the Ordinance, the Bye-laws made under the Municipalities Act by which the Rajahmundry Municipality could give licences prior to its notification as larger urban area would continue to be in force and enable the Rajahmundry Corporation to grant such licences. In the alternative, it was submitted that u/s 14 (3) considering the situation to be a case of insufficient provision, the Court may construe the provisions of the Act in that manner as to facilitate the grant of licenses to plumbers.
I am of the opinion that these alternate solutions are not necessary because I have already held that the Corporation continue to have the power to grant licences whenever or wherever there is no Water Supply and Sewerage Board. In fact, the problem arises only where there is no Water Supply and Sewerage Board such as in Rajahmundry. The problem will not arise in Hyderabad for instance because under the Act 15 of 1989 such licence will be given by the Water Supply and Sewerage Board and the Corporation will not deal with the matter even if the Corporation has such a residuary power. But in other Corporations to which the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act was extended by the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1984 power to licence plumbers will enure because there is no other authority to grant licences. There is no need to resort to the provisions of Section 13 (3) or 14 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1994 to sustain such a power, because that power gets suspended by necessary implication only when a Water Supply and Sewerage Board is constituted and the power gets transferred to it.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents relying on the reason given in the counter affidavit that the reference to Plumbers in the licensing provisions was deleted because of public complaint is self-defeating. If it is a common complaint that the Plumbers are giving rise to malpractices and complaints by the public, commonsense will dictate that their performance should be regulated by licensing and monitoring their work. It will not be conducive to public policy to allow the Plumbers to operate without any licence because it would lead to a situation where unqualified people will also carry out works jeopardising the safety of the water works. I have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting this contention of the respondents.
Lastly, the question of granting licenses to the Plumbers arises only when there is a necessity for such licencing and where the performance of any work by an unlicenced plumber is prohibited and is an offence. These Acts which provided for licencing of plumbers contain provisions for compulsory employment of licensed plumbers in carrying out the works and for prohibition of any work being done by an unlicenced plumbers. When the scheme of the several Acts in relation to water works is to have only licenced plumbers to carry out certain function it stand to reason that such licence must be granted wherever a qualified person applies for the same. If such applications are to be rejected, it can be done only after giving an opportunity of being heard and for reasons to be recorded in writing (see) Raj Restaurant and Another Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, . In the present case, I am convinced that the petitioners were entitled to have their applications for licence considered by the Corporation of Rajahmundry inasmuch as there is no Water Supply and Sewerage Board in existence, taking over the functions and the Corporation is duty bound to give an opportunity and also record the reasons if such applications for licences were to be rejected. I, therefore, deem it fit to set aside the impugned endorsement and direct the Corporation to consider the applications and pass appropriate orders within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.