COMMISSIONER KARUR MUNICIPALITY KARUR Vs. NARAYAN KONAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the complainant the Commissioner, Karur Municipality, is directed against the acquittal of the respondent by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate No. I, Karur in S.T.C. 915/ 86 tried for an offence under S. 216(3) read with S.317 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act 1920.(the Act for short).

(2.) The case of the prosecution as is seen from the evidence of P.W. 1, the Town Planning Inspector is as follows: On 24-10-85, he inspected the building in B. No. 935 in Jawahar Mansion, Karur, belonging to the respondent and found that the respondent had commenced construction of an underground cellar 6 metres long and 3 metres broad, by digging the foundation, levelling up by putting up R.C.P. Pillars. No permission of the Municipality had been obtained for the construction of the above underground cellar and hence he submitted Ex.P.1 report to the appellant, A notice Ex. P.2 under S. 216(1) and (2) of the Act was issued to the respondent informing him about the commencement of the unlawful construction and requiring him, within three days of the receipt of the notice, either to demolish it or to show cause why the appellant should not demolish it. Ex.P.2 was served on Venugopal the Son of the respondent. Since the building was neither demolished nor any cause was shown as to why it should not be demolished by the appellant, the provisional order was confirmed under S. 216(3) of the Act on 16-10-85 as per Ex.P-3, Thereafter, the present prosecution was launched for the offences shown above.

(3.) The case of the respondent was that on 7-10-1985 he applied for approval of a plan which was returned on 13-11-85 and represented on 20-12-85 as per Ex.D.1 and the same was rejeted on 19-3-1986 as per Ex.P.5. Against the order of rejection, he had filed an appeal under S. 322(b) as per Ex.D.2. Meantime, since the building had to be ahead with the construction, according to the specifications of the Indian Bank and there was no violation of any of the building rules. His appeal was pending and hence there could be no prosecution. He also stated that Ex.P.2 notice was never served on him and he had no knowledge about it.