P LOGANATHAN Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam in Crl.M.P.No.2529 of 2000, declining to drop the proceedings against the petitioner for offences under Sections 217 G and 217 J of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act.

(2.) The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner has put up a construction in the second floor at Survey No.1680 at Door.No.2A in Princely Palace without obtaining licence. Hence, a show cause notice dated 19.04.2000 was issued to him by the Commissioner (Executive Authority) of Udhagamandalam directing him to to demolish the said construction, as he was not having the licence or in the alternative, if he fails to do so, the said construction will be demolished by the Municipality and the expenses have to be borne out by him. The petitioner though having resisted this had kept quiet and did not chose to reply and hence a complaint was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam by the Commissioner, Udhagamandalam Municipality after obtaining the sanction of prosecution for offences under Sections 217-G and 217-J.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner had sought for discharge on the ground that the Municipal Commissioner had no jurisdiction to issue the notice and consequently, the action taken by the Commissioner has no legal sanction and hence the entire proceeding is vitiated. Since the same did not find favour before the court below, the petitioner has come by way of revision before this Court.