(1.) These two rules have been heard together as per the order dated 11.10.85 passed in the order sheet of Revision No. 1708 of 1985. The facts and law involved in both are quite the same.
(2.) It appears that case No. 7C of 1985 under section 509/488 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 pending in the Court of Sm. Keya Basu, Judicial Magistrate, Howrah was initiated by Shri S.K. Pal, Sanitary Inspector, Howrah Municipality (O.P.I) against the present petitioner, Shri R.P. Ojha, Mill Manager, of a Mill of M/s. Fort William Jute Co. Ltd., situated within the area of the said Municipality. The allegation as per the complaint was that on 12.11.84 the said complainant being ordered went to inspect and enquire about a workshop newly established within the premises of the said Mill which allegedly was creating nuisance when he was refused entry into the said Mill premises.
(3.) Case No. 3C of 1985 of the same court was also initiated by Shri Pal against Shri Ojha on a complaint under section 385/488 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 on allegation of extension of the factory aDd installation of new machines with electric power within the said premises without obtaining permission of the Municipality. The petitioner appeared and applied for discharge on grounds that (1) the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 in its application to Howrah Municipality stood repealed and replaced by Howrah Municipal Act, 1980 on the dates of the alleged commission of the offences and that (2) the cases were not maintainable against him as he was not personally responsible for the offence complained of. The opposite party Municipality contested both the applications by taking up the stand that, the said Act was not repealed in its applications to Howrah in spite of the coming into effect of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. The learned Magistrate accepted the latter view and held both the cases maintainable under the law. Hence, the revisional applications where the self same objections are again being agitated by the petitioner.