The Panchayat Board of Anaikaran Chatram vs Rahamatullah Saheb Taikal at Pakkiri Thaikkal Anaikkaran Chatram

Ismail, J.—The defendant in O.S. No. 394 of 1967 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Munsif of Sirkali, who lost before the Courts below, is the appellant herein. The defendant-Appellant is the Panchayat Board of Anaikkaranchatram represented by its Executive Officer. The respondent-plaintiff is Rahmatulla Sahib Taikkal at Anaikkaranchatram. The suit was instituted by the respondent for declaration that the respondent is not bound to take out any licence for holding the private weekly fair in R.S. No. 364, Pakkiri Thaikkal, Thirumailadi vattam and for a consequential injunction restraining the appellant Panchayat Board from levying and collecting any licence fee or taking any proceedings against the respondent in respect thereof, and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 765/- with future interest and for costs. The respondent had previously taken out a licence under S. 100(1) of the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), but with regard to the year in question, the respondent declined to take out a licence and came forward with the suit. According to the respondent, the weekly fair conducted in R.S. No. 364 will not constitute a private market within the scope of the Act, and therefore, it was not bound to take out a licence. Its further case was that the Appellant Panchayat does not render any service whatever to the said Weekly fair and on that ground also, the appellant was not entitled to demand any licence fee, because the licence fee must be in the form of quid pro quo for the service the appellant-panchayat renders. Both the Courts below accepted the case of the respondent and decreed the suit. Hence the present second appeal by the defendant-Panchayat Board. With regard to the first point, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is no difference between ''weekly shandy'' and ''weekly fair'' and ''private market'' and therefore, a weekly shandy will fall within the scope of S. 100(1) of the Act and consequently, the respondent was bound to obtain a licence. S.100(1) of the Act states:--

No person shall open a new private market or continued to keep open a private market unless he has obtained a licence from the Panchayat or the Panchayat Union Council, as the case may be, to do so. Such licence shall be renewed every year.

The learned counsel invites my attention to the meaning of the Tamil word given in the Tamil Lexicon published by the Madras University and contends that there is no difference between a shandy, a fair and a market, and therefore, the weekly fair in question will squarely fall within S.100(1) of the Act. In the Tamil Lexicon published by the Madras University, Volume III, Part I, at page 1273 the meaning of the Tamil word" " " has been given as "shandy, fair market". The learned counsel also in vitesmy attention to Bouvier''s Law Dictionary, Volume II, wherein at page 2095, it is stated, "All fairs are markets, but not vice versa". He also invites my attend on to page 1179 of the same book wherein it is stated that ''Fair'' means ''a public market or place of buying or selling''. As far as the present case is concerned, we are not really concerned whether a fair is also a market in a general sense or a Dictionary sense or not. In this particular case, the statute, viz., the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958, itself uses two expressions, ''fair'' and ''market'' separately to denote two different things. I have already extracted Sec. 100 (1) of the Act where the expression ''private market'' alone has been used. S.90 of the Act can be usefully contrasted with S.100 (1). S. 90 States:--

Where a mosque, temple, mutt or any place of religious worship or instruction or any place which is used for holding fairs or festivals or for other like purposes is situate within the limits of a village or town or in the neighbourhood thereof and attracts either throughout the year or on particular occasions a large number of persons, any special arrangements necessary for public health, safety or conveniences. whether permanent or temporary, shall be made by the Panchayat; but the Government may after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place, require him to make such recurring or non-recurring contribution to the funds of the Panchayat as they may determine.

Thus, it is clear that while S. 100 (1) uses the word ''market'', S. 90 uses the word ''fair''. If the Legislature meant the same thing when it used the two expressions, ''fair'' and ''market'', certainly, it would have uniformly used the word ''fair'' both in S. 90 and in S. 100 (1) or would have used the word ''market'' both in S.90 and in S.100(1). The very fact that it used ''fair'' in one Section and ''market'' in another Section, clearly shows that the Legislature intended these two words to denote two different things. It is a normal rule of construction that where different words have been used by the Legislature in the same section or in different sections of an enactment they denote different things unless there is something in the context which compels the court to hold that the different words mean one and the same thing. In other words, it is not to be presumed that the Legislature is guilty of redundancy or superfluity. If this test is applied, certainly, ''fair'' is not the same thing as ''market'' as far as the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958 is concerned. and so, Sec. 100(1) does not apply to the weekly fair with which we are concerned, in the present case. Consequently, the respondent was right in contending that it was not bound to take out a licence in respect of its weekly fair under S. 100 (1) of the Act.

Equally, the second point also is decidedly against the appellant herein. The learned Subordinate Judge has referred to the evidence of the President of the appellant-Panchayat, examined as D.W.1. D.W. 1 admitted in the course of his evidence that the weekly fair in question was being conducted from time immemorial according to the custom and the Panchayat had not been rendering any service whatever to the weekly fair in question. He was categorical in stating that the respondent herein had its own employees for cleaning and other purposes of the weekly shandy and the employees of the appellant-Panchayat had not come anywhere near the area in question of the fair for the purpose of rendering any service. In view of this admitted position the appellant herein was not entitled to demand any licence fee from the respondent herein in respect of the weekly fair. Consequently, looked at from any point of view, the respondent was right in contending that it was not bound to take out a licence under S. 100 (1) of the Act for holding the weekly fair which it has been doing, and the appellant herein was not justified in demanding any licence fee from the respondent herein as the appellant, admittedly, is not doing any service in respect of the said weekly fair. Under these circumstances, the second appeal fails and it is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. No leave.