SATISH CHANDRA SHAHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment of the Court was as follows:

(2.) The only point raised on behalf of the Petitioner in this Rule obtained against an order of demolition passed by the Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta under Section 363 of the Calcutta Municipal Act is that the application was barred by limitation under the provisions of Section 534 of the Calcutta Municipal Act. This section provides that:

(3.) Mr. Mukherji's contention is that the application to the magistrate under Section 363 really amounts to a prosecution for an offence and so the limitation prescribed by Section 534 is applicable. It is worth noticing in this connection that the Calcutta Municipal Act gives the Corporation two alternative procedures for dealing with unauthorised structures : one is under Section 493, which makes the owner of the building liable to fine for certain unauthorised structures and the other is under Section 363, under which the magistrate may order demolition. It may be that when the Corporation is proceeding against the owner under Section 493--which section occurs in the chapter on "Penalties"--the limitation prescribed in Section 534 is applicable. We are unable to see, however, how this section (sic) have any application to proceedings under Section 363. The Calcutta Municipal Act has provided for punishments for offences (sic) it is in connection with those punishments that Section 534 comes into play. Mr. Mukherji's contention is that the order of demolition is a kind of punishment. Using the word "punishment" in a loose way, this may perhaps be correct. We are unable to agree, however, that when Section 534 speaks of "punishment for any "offence against this Act, etc.", it can refer to the demolition provided for in Section 363. This view of course is in consonance with a long series of decisions of this Court, of which mention may be made of Krishan Doyal Jalan v. Corporation of Calcutta,1927 54 ILR(Cal) 532; In the matter of Corporation of Calcutta v. Keshub Chunder Sen,1902 8 CalWN 142. Our attention was drawn to some observations in the case in Corporation of Calcutta v. Bhupal Chandra Singha, 1951 1 ILR(Cal) 319, in which, in considering whether the court had jurisdiction over proceedings before the Municipal Magistrate under Section 421 of the Municipal Act, the learned Judges said that the proceedings--and incidentally they referred also to proceedings for demolition of unauthorised structures--were for dealing with offences. The learned Judges were not considering the applicability of Section 534. With great respect to their Lordships, the observations appear to us to be too wide and inapplicable to proceedings under Section 363 of the Calcutta Municipal Act. It is to be noticed that the attention of their Lordships was not drawn to the earlier decisions mentioned above.