ARDESHAR JIVANJI MISTRI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in this case were convicted under rule 27(5) passed by the Government order the powers conferred by Section 188, sub Section (1), of the Bombay District Municipal Act of. The facts are correctly stated in the petition which the accused has made to this Court in revision. I need not set them out again. The accused had asked for permission in the proper from to build on his own land. He got what is sailed a model reply on the 5 November 1920 " permission refused, " and it in necessary to point out that, although that model reply purports to have been sent according to the provisions of rule 27 (3), all that the Committee could do was to pans a provision al order directing that, for a period, which stall not be longer than one month from the case of such order, the intended work shall not be proceeded with. On the face of it, this order refusing permission was for an indefinite) period.

(2.) Under Sub-rule (4) a person who has given notice under Sub-rule (1) may proceed with his building, if the Committee within one month from the receipt of the notice given under Sub-rule (1) have neither passed order under Sub-rule (2) nor issued under Sub-rule (3) any provisional order or any demand for farther particulars.

(3.) The Committee had not issued proper orders under either Sub-rule (2) or Sub-rule (3), and consequently the petitioner was entitled to build, After the petitioner received the order of the 5 November, he called on the Chairman of the committee and requested him to give the grounds for refusing permission. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed by a letter dated the 20 November 1920 that permission to build was refused because there was no existing metalled road there and none projected, and also that a bungalow there would lead to undesirable congestion.