VEERAKESAVAN Vs. ANCHI CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the accused who is the Commissioner of Gudiyattam Municipality. The complainant before the court of the Sub -Magistrate, Gudiyattam is the respondent herein (Anchi Chettiar). The essence of the complaint against the petitioner is that the petitioner had willfully ordered the demolition of the building built and enjoyed by the respondent on a vacant site taken by him on lease from the Gudiyattam Municipality with certain ulterior motive and intent to cause wrongful loss to the respondent. According to the complainant the Commissioner has no power to do that.

(2.) FOUR prosecution witnesses appear to have been examined and at that stage a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner (first accused) that the proceedings against him were incompetent in law on the ground that there has been no sanction obtained against him by the complainant under S. 197 Crl. P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not choose to rely on S. 197 Crl. P.C., before the proceedings in this conrt, and rightly tee.

(3.) MR . Narayanamoorthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that in view of the preceding events beginning from the resolution of the Municipal Council upto the day of demolition of the shed of the respondent, the petitioner was at least acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. The resolution of the Municipal Council authorized the petitioner (Commissioner of the Municipality) to take action against the defaulter, namely, the respondent herein. Even on 29th September 1970, the Municipal Commissioner issued a notice Ex. D. 1 demanding for payment before 10th October 1973 of the enhanced lease amount in regard to the premises occupied by the respondent. Evidently the respondent did not pay the enhanced lease amount. The petitioner issued another notice on 19th November 1970 (Ex. P. 4, and on 23rd November 1970 all on a sudden at about 12 noon, accused 2 to 4 purporting to act under the orders of the first accused (the petitioner) turned up and pulled down the structure causing loss of about Rs. 500. The details of the demolition are found in the allegations mentioned in the complaint and in the evidence of P.W. 1 also. In the notice issued, on 19th November 1970, the Municipal Commissioner (petitioner) seems to invoke Ss. 341 and 344 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, for exercise of his power. But the said notice dated 19th November 1970 demanded payment of arrears by 20th November 1970. There was no notice for removal of the structure on the leased land. In my view, the provisions of S. 341 of the Act are totally inapplicable. Even S. 344 cannot be called into aid by the petitioner, for the said location places rents for lands and buildings demised by the Municipal Council outside the ambit of S. 344. In my view S. 344 of the Act also is totally inapplicable. Any powers vested in the petitioner within the ambit of Schedule IV also cannot be called into aid for the exercise of any power for demolishing the shed of the respondent. But the learned counsel sited authorities, the first of which is the one reposted in Matajog Debey and another v. H.C. Bhari, 1956 M. W. N. (Cri.) 57 and relied on the following passage at page 61: